Most Athletic Center of All Time? David Robinson or Dwight Howard

[howbouthemspurs]

When I say athletic, i mean on all aspects: agility, speed, quickness, flexibility, strength, toughness, endurance, stamina, and abilities.

David Robinson in his prime vs Dwight Howard now.

[hater]

The Admiral:
agility, speed, quickness, flexibility endurance, stamina, and abilities

Dwight:
strength

[Muser]

I'd give it to Robinson in his prime.

Howards prime hasn't come yet though, so you can't really say.

[Galileo]

When I say athletic, i mean on all aspects: agility, speed, quickness, flexibility, strength, toughness, endurance, stamina, and abilities.

David Robinson in his prime vs Dwight Howard now.

DRob is more athletic than Howard. Wilt Chamberlain was more athletic than both of them put together.

[Libri]

DRob had offensive skills.

Howard is still trying to develop some.

[stretch]

Howard is a better athlete

Robinson is a better jumpshooter

[urunobili]

D-Rob more athletic... by far...

[JamStone]

Ummmm neither.

Wilt Chamberlain.

[101A]

Howard is a better athlete

Robinson is a better jumpshooter

Yeah, there's a couple of jumpshots in here:

S36g_AZX84M

[Supergirl]

well between D-Rob and Dwight, I'd go with D-Rob. But if you want an answer to the actual question posed - who is the most athletic center of all time? - that would be someone else entirely. Maybe Hakeem?

[4down]

DRob is more athletic than Howard. Wilt Chamberlain was more athletic than both of them put together.:blah

:rollin

Hakeem is in this conversation as well, but Wilt? He was definitely more athletic "ath-a-let-ic", as Chuck would say, than his peers by a wider margin than David or Dwight, but even if he were more athletic than either of those two, it's not like he is that much better than the both of them put together. Hell, Shaq would have scored 200 in the game Wilt got 100. And no, I haven't seen the 16MM filmstrip that the game was recorded on, so yes, I'm too young to know how great Wilt was, but that's besides the point. David and Dwight were/are physical freaks amongst a set of peers that has been getting increasingly physically freakish. Wilt was playing abunch of 5'11 white guys who knew next to nothing regarding nutrition and training compared to todays athletes and trainers. Seriously, Wilt being so great was like Barry Bonds playing against a team of Honus Wagner clones. He's still great, but the crappiness of those around him makes him look that much better.

Props to him for scoring with 20 million women or whatever.:hat

[howbouthemspurs]

well between D-Rob and Dwight, I'd go with D-Rob. But if you want an answer to the actual question posed - who is the most athletic center of all time? - that would be someone else entirely. Maybe Hakeem?

[howbouthemspurs]

Hakeem had far better skills but over all athleticism,.... I think DRob was better.

[newacc]

David Robinson above anybody. Wilt? Hakeem? Those guys couldn't dream of athletically doing what Robinson could do.

Howard is athletic but he's nowhere close to Robinson's agility, balance, or hang time.

To answer this question all you have to ask if any of the other three could:

1) walk across a basketball court on their hands
2) do a 360 dunk with two hands during a game
3) dribble up the court and avoid Michael Jordan stealing the ball and finish with a slam

A lot of people don't remember what kind of a freak David was. David Robinson easily.

[Libri]

Yeah, there's a couple of jumpshots in here:

S36g_AZX84M

Those blocks at 2:11 were trademark DRob blocks. The Admiral would get up so fast for the block that opposing players were left bewildered.

[2Cleva]

Ummmm neither.

Wilt Chamberlain.



As he did at Overbrook, Chamberlain again showcased his diverse athletic talent. He ran the 100-yard dash in 10.9 seconds, threw the shotput 56 feet, triple jumped more than 50 feet, and won the high jump in the Big Eight track and field championships three straight years.[26]...

Even far beyond his playing days, Chamberlain was a very fit person. In his mid-forties, he was able to humble rookie Magic Johnson in practice,[96] and even in the 1980s, he flirted with making a comeback in the NBA. In the 1980-81 NBA season, coach Larry Brown recalled that the 45-year old Chamberlain had received an offer by the Cleveland Cavaliers. When Chamberlain was 50, the New Jersey Nets had the same idea, and Chamberlain declined again.[96] Chamberlain however participated in several marathons instead.[4] He would stay an epitome of physical fitness for years to come, until his health rapidly worsened in 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

Some fans need to know the history of the game.

[ambchang]

:blah

:rollin

Hakeem is in this conversation as well, but Wilt? He was definitely more athletic "ath-a-let-ic", as Chuck would say, than his peers by a wider margin than David or Dwight, but even if he were more athletic than either of those two, it's not like he is that much better than the both of them put together. Hell, Shaq would have scored 200 in the game Wilt got 100. And no, I haven't seen the 16MM filmstrip that the game was recorded on, so yes, I'm too young to know how great Wilt was, but that's besides the point. David and Dwight were/are physical freaks amongst a set of peers that has been getting increasingly physically freakish. Wilt was playing abunch of 5'11 white guys who knew next to nothing regarding nutrition and training compared to todays athletes and trainers. Seriously, Wilt being so great was like Barry Bonds playing against a team of Honus Wagner clones. He's still great, but the crappiness of those around him makes him look that much better.

Props to him for scoring with 20 million women or whatever.:hat

If you are ignorant on a subject, at least acknowledge you are ignorant and not have an opinion on it.

[4down]

If you are ignorant on a subject, at least acknowledge you are ignorant and not have an opinion on it.

Did you read the post? I acknowledged my own lack of knowledge of all of Chamberlains athletic accomplishments, so thoughtfully prvided in the wikipedia link above.

I am not however, so blinded by rose colored visions of the past as to ignore the superior athletic competition the modern NBA has to offer. If you think the NBA was better in the 50's than it is now, by all means, go on with your nostalgic ramblings.

The only reason Olajuwon, Howard, and Robinson did not similarly dominate the college track and field days of their time, was that they never competed in them.

P.S. Instead of just using your time to call someone ignorant in an inane post of your own, why not bring a take? Something legit. I'm up for discussion.

[rjv]

DRob is more athletic than Howard. Wilt Chamberlain was more athletic than both of them put together.

i'd have to agree. wilt definitely was a freak.

[ambchang]

Did you read the post? I acknowledged my own lack of knowledge of all of Chamberlains athletic accomplishments, so thoughtfully prvided in the wikipedia link above..

Apparently you didn't even read the one sentence I wrote. Take your own advice and read it again.


I am not however, so blinded by rose colored visions of the past as to ignore the superior athletic competition the modern NBA has to offer. If you think the NBA was better in the 50's than it is now, by all means, go on with your nostalgic ramblings.

Since when have I said athletic competition was ignored? When did I say the NBA was better in the 50's than it is now?

And Wilt only played half a season in the 50's. He went up against a prime Jabbar and played him dead even, even though Wilt was way past his prime. In turn, Jabbar was playing dead even against a young Hakeem when Jabbar was in his late 30's.


The only reason Olajuwon, Howard, and Robinson did not similarly dominate the college track and field days of their time, was that they never competed in them.

And you know because .....


P.S. Instead of just using your time to call someone ignorant in an inane post of your own, why not bring a take? Something legit. I'm up for discussion.

So far you have demonstrated that your ignorance on a subject will not stop you from forming an opinion, that you can't take your own advice and read other people's posts in their entirety, and that you jump to conclusions. Good job.

Just do a simple search on Spurstalk, the subject of NBA oldies vs. modern NBA has been discussed ad nauseum. Besides, why would you be up for discussion on a subject you admit on being ignorant on? I am not going to argue optimization theories with a Grade 2 kid learning the multiplication table.

[stretch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

Some fans need to know the history of the game.

lol wikipedia

[elbamba]

Some people need to realize that you cant compare different eras of basketball. Would Wilt be able to dominate in the 90s when the NBA was stacked with quality centers? Who would know? You can certainly compare David with the Dream. David was more athletic but the Dream had way more skills with a basketball.

[bigfan]

Ummmm neither.

Wilt Chamberlain.

Absolutely right.

[DMX7]

Robinson in his prime was on another planet, way more athletic than Howard (overall)

[tmtcsc]

David Robinson was a physical wonder. He was amazing. Dwight Howard still seems a bit rigid to me whereas Drob had more fluid movement.

I'd say David Robinson.

David Robinson didn't have the greatest foot work in the world or the best offensive skills but he really was an incredible defender.

As for Hakeem, he had the best offensive skills of the three and he was extremely agile and athletic too. But he wasn't as tall as either one of the other guys.

[dbreiden83080]

Wilt...

[VivaPopovich]

Gotta go with David.

Take away Dwight's height and body and you have nothing really except a guy that likes to dunk.

That's true for most NBA players. Other than their gifts, they have no real skillsets. Which is illustrated best when you have players like Shaq and Ben Wallace signing $60M+ deals and they can't even hit free throws.

[jonnybravo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKVqpXl3M18

That blur across your screen is David Robinson.

I've had to repost this a million times when Oden was coming up to dispel any and ALL myths that he was in the same galaxy as David Robinson as an athlete. Surprisingly many fans on various boards I frequent and "experts, compared his athleticism to David Robinson. Yeah...okay.

There's isn't a 7'1" athlete with the combination of speed, explosiveness and agility as the Admiral. The way he moved was like a 6'7" wing except int he body of a big man.

[Obstructed_View]

I love David Robinson, but he couldn't dunk his free throws. David was a complete athletic freak, but Wilt was THE athletic freak.

[ShoogarBear]

DRob is more athletic than Howard. Wilt Chamberlain was more athletic than both of them put together.


Ummmm neither.

Wilt Chamberlain.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

Some fans need to know the history of the game.


Absolutely right.


Good, I didn't have to say it first this time.

[4down]

Apparently you didn't even read the one sentence I wrote. Take your own advice and read it again.



Since when have I said athletic competition was ignored? When did I say the NBA was better in the 50's than it is now?

And Wilt only played half a season in the 50's. He went up against a prime Jabbar and played him dead even, even though Wilt was way past his prime. In turn, Jabbar was playing dead even against a young Hakeem when Jabbar was in his late 30's.



And you know because .....



So far you have demonstrated that your ignorance on a subject will not stop you from forming an opinion, that you can't take your own advice and read other people's posts in their entirety, and that you jump to conclusions. Good job.

Just do a simple search on Spurstalk, the subject of NBA oldies vs. modern NBA has been discussed ad nauseum. Besides, why would you be up for discussion on a subject you admit on being ignorant on? I am not going to argue optimization theories with a Grade 2 kid learning the multiplication table.



"And no, I haven't seen the 16MM filmstrip that the game was recorded on, so yes, I'm too young to know how great Wilt was, but that's besides the point."



:lol
I don't really care about searching and reading old discussions - once in a while I read the first page of ST threads. All you've done was comment on my post and why you think I shouldn't have a take. Great. whatever, I don't give a shit about that. You never brought a take of your own, except to ask me to not have an opinion about something I don't know about. To that I say fuck off. Actually, I noticed you did make some points there later which I'll respond to in a minute.:p: But gimme a break - most of the posters on the forum know a thing or two about ball, not many know that much more. And if you think you know too much to be discussing basketball with mere peons, maybe you should be the one not posting on sites like this, because anyone can form an opinion. Thinking you're too good to talk to someone or discuss a point is the halmark of an asshole.

I wish you'd actually state what you believe about the topic at hand. I will judge when it is appropriate for me to post and if mods think I get out of hand, they are free to ban me. I stated in my original post what I thought, but recognized that there were limitations to my knowledge on the subject. Unless you're Dr. Jack Ramsey, or Lord Popovich himself, I don't give a rat's ass about what you think you know about basketball or how many posts you have. If you knew the basketball equivalent of optimization theory, you should have a front office job. But you're probably some shmo' at a desk, working a regular job, or maybe even a great job, given that you're posting on ST. What I'm sure you're not is someone who is employed by an NBA team. So get off your high horse and bring a basketball take.

If all you're interested in doing is "owning" someone on an internet forum with your mad arguing skillz, be my guest. (although i think that's pretty pathetic)

But if you want to really contribute to the forum and add to the discussion, let me know where you think I'm wrong. You seem to just be sitting on some high horse with this optimization theory crap and that's pretty pretentious dude.

Your responses to my posts have also highlighted a major flaw in this type of discussion - and it's already been mentioned: subjectivity. My original post stated that I thought Wilt is in the discussion, but it's not so cut and dry that he was definitely the greatest athlete among centers.

What makes you think Wilt is the most athletic, if that's your opinion? I really think a lot of the posters have brought some pretty good takes with the reasons for whoever they are supporting. We all know Jabbar wasn't all that great an athlete as well. In fact, that's an argument a lot of people have used for supporting the idea that Tim Duncan still has some good years "in the tank", and hence can be good for several more years, since neither relied all that much on athleticsim, relying rather on the arsenal of moves each has/had. (sorry bout the run-on) So your Jabbar argument is only so/so in my estimation, really. I don't care about old Wilt vs. young Jabbar, or old Jabbar vs. young Hakeem, I think people are trying to look at all these guys in their primes and decide which was the most athletic at his best.

I really think it's David for speed and leaping ability, and David was no slouch in terms of strength either, although I believe Wilt had the edge there after he bulked up.

As far as me saying you're all nostalgic about the older eras, you're right, you never said that. I erroneously assumed that was your stance. And you know what, I actually don't know for sure that all those guys definitely would have won those imaginary track competitions, just like nobody can know for sure that Wilt was easily twice the athlete that DRob and Dwight are COMBINED. That's just a bit of hyperbole don't you think? I did the same of course in saying Shaq would have scored 200. But you gotta admit Wilt didn't have the same degree of competion the modern guys had.

There may even be guys who could win the athlete argument that we are not considering because while they may have been great athletes, they were not skilled enough to be effective for major minutes.

Have a good life, bud.:toast

[4down]

I can go on about Wilt, so I will.

Just to bring something up, Wilt still hold the records for minutes per game in a season and in a career. No one will ikely ever break either, especially the minutes per game in a season.


Were the seasons 82 games long during Wilt's tenure? That might mitigate some of the glory of that accomplishment, although it is impressive.

[jdev82]

young shaq had his head at rim level consistently and was the strongest playa ever. no doubt. drob was very quick, could jump and run fast. and dwight jumps high.

[lurker23]

Were the seasons 82 games long during Wilt's tenure? That might mitigate some of the glory of that accomplishment, although it is impressive.

Yes.

http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=ChambWi01

[Obstructed_View]

young shaq had his head at rim level consistently and was the strongest playa ever. no doubt. drob was very quick, could jump and run fast. and dwight jumps high.

Shaq has been called athletic for his size. That doesn't even put him within shouting distance of guys like Hakeem and Robinson.

[ThePop]

Easily David

[Spursfan092120]

OK..seriously..to compare Dwight Howard at this moment to David Robinson in his prime is an insult to David. Dwight has little to no offensive game. If you get a guy who can match him with power, he's got no game. He's not a good shooter, Not as fast as David, not as athletic as David, and David, over a MUCH longer career than Dwight has experienced so far, shoots 13% better on Free Throws, which is VERY important for athletic bigs who know how to get fouled. This isn't even close...yet. Now don't get me wrong..Dwight has a lot of promise...and I really like him, but he's not NEAR HOF level..and that's what you're comparing him with.

[my2sons]

lol wikipedia

wikipedia is true...it is...IT IS...

[ulosturedge]

I would think the Admiral was more agile, quicker, and more limber then both Dwight and Wilt. Wilt i'd think was definitely stronger and probably had a better constitution. Evaluating endurance and stamina is suspect to me because did Wilt have to exert as much energy trying to stop opposing players? His stature and length I think helped him. He was more durable then Robinson, but then I don't think that has anything to do with athleticism. Anyways there are so many attributes to being athletic so its hard to compare.

[wildbill2u]

Wilt was so dominant because of his athleticism that he caused changes in the form as well as the rules of the game. One was the widening of the lane and the other was to outlaw crossing the foul line with the ball on a foul shot. He could simply leap to the basket and dunk a foul shot.

He also played vollyeball at a professional level well into his middle age, demonstrating his agility. He was incredibly strong at 7'1 and almost 300 lbs. It was said that players never tried to block or stuff his dunks because they feared they'd go through the basket along with the ball.

[ambchang]

:lol
I don't really care about searching and reading old discussions - once in a while I read the first page of ST threads. All you've done was comment on my post and why you think I shouldn't have a take. Great. whatever, I don't give a shit about that. You never brought a take of your own, except to ask me to not have an opinion about something I don't know about. To that I say fuck off. Actually, I noticed you did make some points there later which I'll respond to in a minute.:p: But gimme a break - most of the posters on the forum know a thing or two about ball, not many know that much more. And if you think you know too much to be discussing basketball with mere peons, maybe you should be the one not posting on sites like this, because anyone can form an opinion. Thinking you're too good to talk to someone or discuss a point is the halmark of an asshole.

So you are lecturing me about not forming my opinion that you shouldn't form an opinion on a subject you confess of being ignorant about? At least I don't come in here and start to state my position on a topic I know absolutely nothing about.


I wish you'd actually state what you believe about the topic at hand. I will judge when it is appropriate for me to post and if mods think I get out of hand, they are free to ban me. I stated in my original post what I thought, but recognized that there were limitations to my knowledge on the subject. Unless you're Dr. Jack Ramsey, or Lord Popovich himself, I don't give a rat's ass about what you think you know about basketball or how many posts you have. If you knew the basketball equivalent of optimization theory, you should have a front office job. But you're probably some shmo' at a desk, working a regular job, or maybe even a great job, given that you're posting on ST. What I'm sure you're not is someone who is employed by an NBA team. So get off your high horse and bring a basketball take.

That is some fantastic arguments, such as people have to be in a certain profession to know about something. But of course, something as simple as whether Wilt Chamberlain was athletic does not need a job on an NBA team, but you probably wouldn't know.

Besides, there are loads of argument already presented, whatever I say would have been repeating what was already posted.


If all you're interested in doing is "owning" someone on an internet forum with your mad arguing skillz, be my guest. (although i think that's pretty pathetic)

Another jump to a conclusion.


But if you want to really contribute to the forum and add to the discussion, let me know where you think I'm wrong. You seem to just be sitting on some high horse with this optimization theory crap and that's pretty pretentious dude.

Where you were wrong was to have no respect of the history of the game, and act all righteous in it. If you don't know your basketball history, learn it, don't go out and diminish the accomplishments of great players that came in before you started watching basketball.


Your responses to my posts have also highlighted a major flaw in this type of discussion - and it's already been mentioned: subjectivity. My original post stated that I thought Wilt is in the discussion, but it's not so cut and dry that he was definitely the greatest athlete among centers.

Except you stated the decade wrong, and exaggerated the lack of athleticism of Wilt's competition.


What makes you think Wilt is the most athletic, if that's your opinion? I really think a lot of the posters have brought some pretty good takes with the reasons for whoever they are supporting. We all know Jabbar wasn't all that great an athlete as well. In fact, that's an argument a lot of people have used for supporting the idea that Tim Duncan still has some good years "in the tank", and hence can be good for several more years, since neither relied all that much on athleticsim, relying rather on the arsenal of moves each has/had. (sorry bout the run-on) So your Jabbar argument is only so/so in my estimation, really. I don't care about old Wilt vs. young Jabbar, or old Jabbar vs. young Hakeem, I think people are trying to look at all these guys in their primes and decide which was the most athletic at his best.

So I take it you haven't seen Jabbar play either. There hasn't been a player his height that played with the level of fluidity since. Get some tape.


I really think it's David for speed and leaping ability, and David was no slouch in terms of strength either, although I believe Wilt had the edge there after he bulked up.

Why would you know? You never even watched the guy play?


As far as me saying you're all nostalgic about the older eras, you're right, you never said that. I erroneously assumed that was your stance. And you know what, I actually don't know for sure that all those guys definitely would have won those imaginary track competitions, just like nobody can know for sure that Wilt was easily twice the athlete that DRob and Dwight are COMBINED. That's just a bit of hyperbole don't you think? I did the same of course in saying Shaq would have scored 200. But you gotta admit Wilt didn't have the same degree of competion the modern guys had.

Bill Russell, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Chamberlain played during the first golden age of centres.


There may even be guys who could win the athlete argument that we are not considering because while they may have been great athletes, they were not skilled enough to be effective for major minutes.

Have a good life, bud.:toast

[bigfan]

One thing for sure, David has more brains and more class than Shaq, Dwight and the late great Wilt had put together.

[DJB]

David Robinson. And I'm not just being a homer Spurs fan. If you look at both of their skill sets and versatility, Robinson is clearly better. Robinson was a beast and Dwight Howard is just the closest thing to him right now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I can go on about Wilt, so I will.

Just to bring something up, Wilt still hold the records for minutes per game in a season and in a career. No one will ikely ever break either, especially the minutes per game in a season.

Someone might get 100 points but no one is getting 50 rebounds ever again.

[WayOutWest]

Arvydas Sabonis would give Wilt a run for his money, too bad he came to the NBA after his prime and after several injuries. Sabonis got to go head to head against DRob.

[peskypesky]

DRob. Howard is stronger, but Robinson was fast. At times he played like a 7 foot SG.

[polandprzem]

By looking at the players I had to go with DRob. There is no comparison to Howard.
wilt has not so great coordination on his moves, and I think college Shaq was even more athletic then wilt

[whottt]

Guys likes Dwight and Hakeem do not belong in the same sentence with Drob, they were great athletes for men their size, Drob was a great athlete for a man of any size.


As for Drob VS Wilt, even I'm not sure on that one, because there is literally no one else like Wilt Chamberlain in the history of the game, not only does no one of any other era compare to him, no one of his era compares to him either. And he was a track star as well.

That said, I don't believe Wilt was as fast as David Robinson, certainly not in any video I have ever seen.

Other than that, I never saw Wilt play so I truly don't know he was the athetlic freak Drob was, I'm inclined to say he wasn't based on the video footage I have seen, I just know he was unquestionably the greatest player to ever play the game.

I've never had the opinion Wilt's numbers were a product of his era...no one of his era came anywhere fucking close to putting up his numbers, no one before his era did either, neither did anyone after his era.


All that said, there is no video footage you can show that shows him being the atheltic freak Drob was. Drob qualified for the naval gymnastic program...you guys go take a look at the size of the typical gymnast, then go look at the size of David Robinson when he qualified for that(even before he reached his full height).

[4down]

all that stuff you wrote.


Dude - you seem to be taking this (and yourself) way too seriously. It's an internet message board. Relax. You still haven't convinced me that Wilt was more athletic than Dwight and David (and hakkem and Shaq, for that matter). I readily admit I can;t convince you surely of my argument, but that's why it's a discussin, bro. people come in and give their takes and take what they will from it. I'm not a fan of forums becoming like the youtube comments section, where it's all dumb personal attacks, that get way off topic. (KBP seems to love that) Your attacking my level of knowledge really doesn't address the topic.

Despite the tenor of my original post, I do have an appreciation, and have watched a fair amount of pre-1980's to curent era basketball . Suffice it to say, the league has become increasingly athletic from its inception to now. You seem to be very dismissive of that. The game is more above the rim than it used to be. I know that doesn't cover all facets of what one may call "athleticism" as far as basketball goes, but it is a major indicator of the athleticism in the game.

I dont disagree that Jabaar was fluid, had an ARSENAL of moves, and was one of the best of al time, but he didn't depend on his athleticism. I don't think many people would try to argue that he was even in the top five in centers in terms of athletic ability. Neither did Hakeem, although it is my opinion that he was more athletic than Jabaar. If you go back and watch the game footage, you will see that he had a lot more lift than Jabaar.

It wasn't my argument that Wilt was not athletic. I think you read a little more in my post than what I said, although my tone was admittedly dismissive of the "old league" I responded to the hyperbole that Wilt was "twice as athletic as David and Dwight combined" with the hyperbole that Shaq would have scored 200. That was in jest, which sometimes is difficult to convey in text, but I do believe that against the same competition, Shaq could easily have matched or exceeded Wilt's production.

Realistically, you can't quantify these guys athleticism to make one empirically researched conclusion as to who was the most athletic, and I don't rule wilt out if this (subjective) discussion. Out of the players discussed, I'd say Dwight, David, Wilt, Hakeem, and Shaq are the top candidates. I don't think any of those five clearly stands out against the others. But I reserve the right to form an opinion, no matter what degree of knowledge I have, and afford you the same.

If we take this further and include all big men, who else might figure into the discussion? Shawn Kemp? Karl Malone? Who else am I missing?

[Chieflion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paex9-VxPbA- Wilt Chamberlain running the full length of the court in game. Showing you his speed.

You guys ask yourselves whether any any centers you mentioned can do this.

[ambchang]

Dude - you seem to be taking this (and yourself) way too seriously. It's an internet message board. Relax.
If I didn’t know any better, I thought it was you who wrote essays after essays in this thread.

And are you trying to critique my way of forming an opinion on an internet board? Am I not allowed to take this personally? Have I violated your personal values by doing so?


You still haven't convinced me that Wilt was more athletic than Dwight and David (and hakkem and Shaq, for that matter). I readily admit I can;t convince you surely of my argument, but that's why it's a discussin, bro. people come in and give their takes and take what they will from it. I'm not a fan of forums becoming like the youtube comments section, where it's all dumb personal attacks, that get way off topic. (KBP seems to love that) Your attacking my level of knowledge really doesn't address the topic.

My goal never was to convince you about the athletic prowess of Wilt. How can I convince anyone who can form an opinion, and seem to have a strong stance, on a topic s/he readily admits s/he knows nothing about?

If you want to form an opinion, whether a basketball forum or anywhere else, it would help that you read up on what you are forming an opinion on. Or else you would turn this forum into a place you are not a fan of, namely a place like the youtube comments section, where ignorant people mouth off on topics they have no knowledge upon.


Despite the tenor of my original post, I do have an appreciation, and have watched a fair amount of pre-1980's to curent era basketball . Suffice it to say, the league has become increasingly athletic from its inception to now. You seem to be very dismissive of that. The game is more above the rim than it used to be. I know that doesn't cover all facets of what one may call "athleticism" as far as basketball goes, but it is a major indicator of the athleticism in the game.

For every Stoudemire, there is a Duncan, for every LeBron James, there is a Roy.

The fact that ESPN chooses to show highlight dunks after highlights dunks doesn’t mean that highlight dunks are the only thing that happens in the game. Some players in the 60’s were born athletic freaks (Wilt, Elgin Baylor, Elvin Hayes, etc …). Sure they didn’t have the level of nutrition and training that athletes have today, but that doesn’t have anything to do with athletic ability but more so with training.


I dont disagree that Jabaar was fluid, had an ARSENAL of moves, and was one of the best of al time, but he didn't depend on his athleticism. I don't think many people would try to argue that he was even in the top five in centers in terms of athletic ability. Neither did Hakeem, although it is my opinion that he was more athletic than Jabaar. If you go back and watch the game footage, you will see that he had a lot more lift than Jabaar.

If you want to argue jumping ability as the sole indicator of athletic ability, then this is your definition. To me, athletic ability is a combination of many things, and fluidity and agility is definitely one of them.


It wasn't my argument that Wilt was not athletic. I think you read a little more in my post than what I said, although my tone was admittedly dismissive of the "old league" I responded to the hyperbole that Wilt was "twice as athletic as David and Dwight combined" with the hyperbole that Shaq would have scored 200. That was in jest, which sometimes is difficult to convey in text, but I do believe that against the same competition, Shaq could easily have matched or exceeded Wilt's production.

Shaq had trouble scoring as many points as Allen Iverson during his prime, and only led the league in scoring once. While most of this is because he cruises during the regular season, his accomplishments around scoring are not unmatched in his own era. Wilt on the other hand, blew his competition out of the water.


Realistically, you can't quantify these guys athleticism to make one empirically researched conclusion as to who was the most athletic, and I don't rule wilt out if this (subjective) discussion. Out of the players discussed, I'd say Dwight, David, Wilt, Hakeem, and Shaq are the top candidates. I don't think any of those five clearly stands out against the others. But I reserve the right to form an opinion, no matter what degree of knowledge I have, and afford you the same.
As long as your opinion is formed through knowledge and research. This culture of entitlement is destructive and pointless. You can form an opinion and refuse to accept other points of view, and in some cases, deride them, but that brings nothing to the table, and makes a mockery out of the use of freedom.

I can opine that the earth is flat, and then make fun of all those who say the earth is round(ish) despite evidence to the contrary, but that would only make me look like a fool.


If we take this further and include all big men, who else might figure into the discussion? Shawn Kemp? Karl Malone? Who else am I missing?

Karl Malone is most definitely not one of the most athletic big man of all time, other than being strong and somewhat coordinated, he couldn’t jump, is not particularly fast, not fluid nor agile.

There are the Stromile Swifts, Connie Hawkins. But Wilt clearly stands heads and shoulders above everyone else based on the arguments already put forth in this thread.

[4down]

If I didn’t know any better, I thought it was you who wrote essays after essays in this thread.

And are you trying to critique my way of forming an opinion on an internet board? Am I not allowed to take this personally? Have I violated your personal values by doing so?



My goal never was to convince you about the athletic prowess of Wilt. How can I convince anyone who can form an opinion, and seem to have a strong stance, on a topic s/he readily admits s/he knows nothing about?

If you want to form an opinion, whether a basketball forum or anywhere else, it would help that you read up on what you are forming an opinion on. Or else you would turn this forum into a place you are not a fan of, namely a place like the youtube comments section, where ignorant people mouth off on topics they have no knowledge upon.



For every Stoudemire, there is a Duncan, for every LeBron James, there is a Roy.

The fact that ESPN chooses to show highlight dunks after highlights dunks doesn’t mean that highlight dunks are the only thing that happens in the game. Some players in the 60’s were born athletic freaks (Wilt, Elgin Baylor, Elvin Hayes, etc …). Sure they didn’t have the level of nutrition and training that athletes have today, but that doesn’t have anything to do with athletic ability but more so with training.



If you want to argue jumping ability as the sole indicator of athletic ability, then this is your definition. To me, athletic ability is a combination of many things, and fluidity and agility is definitely one of them.



Shaq had trouble scoring as many points as Allen Iverson during his prime, and only led the league in scoring once. While most of this is because he cruises during the regular season, his accomplishments around scoring are not unmatched in his own era. Wilt on the other hand, blew his competition out of the water.


As long as your opinion is formed through knowledge and research. This culture of entitlement is destructive and pointless. You can form an opinion and refuse to accept other points of view, and in some cases, deride them, but that brings nothing to the table, and makes a mockery out of the use of freedom.

I can opine that the earth is flat, and then make fun of all those who say the earth is round(ish) despite evidence to the contrary, but that would only make me look like a fool.



Karl Malone is most definitely not one of the most athletic big man of all time, other than being strong and somewhat coordinated, he couldn’t jump, is not particularly fast, not fluid nor agile.

There are the Stromile Swifts, Connie Hawkins. But Wilt clearly stands heads and shoulders above everyone else based on the arguments already put forth in this thread.


Never said I know nothing about it - that was your assumption. I only said I hadn;t watched all the Wilt film. appreciate your takes though.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

David.




Next.

:cooldevil

[Fpoonsie]

Yeah, there's a couple of jumpshots in here:

S36g_AZX84M

Can I still call myself a hetero male after repeatedly fighting the desire to fap it to this vid?

[ambchang]

Never said I know nothing about it - that was your assumption. I only said I hadn;t watched all the Wilt film. appreciate your takes though.

I am not sure how else I could have taken this:


I'm too young to know how great Wilt was, but that's besides the point.

Or this:


Seriously, Wilt being so great was like Barry Bonds playing against a team of Honus Wagner clones. He's still great, but the crappiness of those around him makes him look that much better.

I didn't mean to offend, but from your first post, you are basically flashing an "I am ignorant, but still want to put in my two cents" sign.

Most people on this board are probably not old enough to have watched Wilt at his peak, but get some game and highlight tapes.

[4down]

I am not sure how else I could have taken this:



Or this:



I didn't mean to offend, but from your first post, you are basically flashing an "I am ignorant, but still want to put in my two cents" sign.

Most people on this board are probably not old enough to have watched Wilt at his peak, but get some game and highlight tapes.

Yeah, I get ya - I think Wilt was great, and while I have seen some film, it is a limited set of examples of Wilt's athleticism compared to what I've seen of Robinson, Olajuwon, Jabaar, etc - I really do believe that Wilt played against competition that made him look a little better, because he 'only' had Bill Russell and a few others to contend with. Compare that to the mid to late 80's and 90's where there were a litany of athletic bigs, and you might be able to see it's not as cut and dry as some would try to purport. Too bad NBA live or some other computer generated platform is the only way we'll have been able to see a matchup between all those guys play out.

[JamStone]

Then we should discredit Shaq and Duncan for their championships. Because when they started winning titles until now, the number of quality low post big men in the league has probably been the worst in the history of the game.

[Cry Havoc]

I am not sure how else I could have taken this:



Or this:



I didn't mean to offend, but from your first post, you are basically flashing an "I am ignorant, but still want to put in my two cents" sign.

Most people on this board are probably not old enough to have watched Wilt at his peak, but get some game and highlight tapes.

Don't you think that kind of attitude precludes most of ST from participating in a discussion, though?

I mean, I see both points of the issue. Wilt was amazing and would definitely be dominant today, but to suggest his competition was tough in the 60s when even good teams from the 80s would get killed today by teams that play defense for the full 48 up and down the court is kind of silly.

However, if you tell people they can't put their opinion in because they're too young, well, I'm not sure if that gives much room to anyone. Someone could sign up here who's seen Wilt play in person 30 or 40 times over his career, but does that mean no one can argue with him? People can be wrong. I've seen Wilt play on video. He was incredible. But to say he was a head and shoulders above a prime Hakeem, Shaq, or David? I don't think you can CLEARLY say that, since there is no evidence. And listing the height of big men in the 60s is not sufficient evidence to say he played against tough competition. Wilt was known as a giant in the day by both skill AND size. Yao Ming would have frightened people in the 60s and been regarded as more of a freak show than a basketball player.

[Cry Havoc]

Then we should discredit Shaq and Duncan for their championships. Because when they started winning titles until now, the number of quality low post big men in the league has probably been the worst in the history of the game.

Do you think the argument could be made that there is now much more skilled players at the guard position, which is making centers that might have been viewed as dominant less so, because the game has become so much more focused on the perimeter? I'm not saying this is the case, I'm just throwing some conjecture out there that the league is insanely deep with 6'5-6'7 guards that have much more ability to get into the lane than at any other point in NBA history, so centers might have lost value as the game increases in speed and shifts offensively to a more open offense.

[ambchang]

People can certainly make opinions on subjects they have little knowledge on, but that adds little to the discussion. I have not tryed to censor people on the board, that alone defeats the purpose of having a discussion board, I am merely put off by people who discredits the history of the game by taking a simple, myopic view on a subject.

And I absolutely disagreed with the notion that teams in the 80's would be killed by teams of today. They played under a totally different set of rules, were exposed to a different playing scheme, and didn't have the luxuries of learning about the advances in team basketball for the last 20 years.

Is Einstein a lesser scientist than Hawkings? Hawkings knew everything that Einstein came up with, but added new research of his own, but it's doubtful that Hawkings could ever came up with what something as revolutionary as Einstein did during his days.

A similar parallel could be drawn for basketball players. LeBron James learned from Kobe, who learned from Jordan, who learned from Dr. J, who learned from David Thompson, who learned from Elgin Baylor. Earlier players came up with creative moves and raised the bar, and later players built on that. Nobody since Wilt opened up the game of basketball Wilt did, strictly from an athletic front, until probably about Robinson and Hakeem entered the game.

BTW, the 60's had great centers in Russell, Thurmond, and then later Unseld and Jabbar. The center position had sucked for the last decade or so, partly because of rule changes that caters to perimeter oriented players, but also because the decrease in skills in the position.

There hasn't been a dominant big man drafted since Duncan in 97. That is a 12 year drought of subpar big man. While Ming and Howard are good, they are unlikely to achieve the status of big man such as Wilt, Jabbar, Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, or Robinson. We are looking at the Ewings or and the Unselds, who are, while great, are not legendary.

[Cry Havoc]

People can certainly make opinions on subjects they have little knowledge on, but that adds little to the discussion. I have not tryed to censor people on the board, that alone defeats the purpose of having a discussion board, I am merely put off by people who discredits the history of the game by taking a simple, myopic view on a subject.

A fair point, and I agree. However, I'm not sure just simply stating that Wilt > everyone else is an unassailable comment, either.


And I absolutely disagreed with the notion that teams in the 80's would be killed by teams of today. They played under a totally different set of rules, were exposed to a different playing scheme, and didn't have the luxuries of learning about the advances in team basketball for the last 20 years.

Okay, I understand the advances, but when I watch NBA FINALS games from the 80s, which are usually the two best teams playing, I see defenders sagging back and giving wide open jumpshots to other players, 15-18 feet from the hoop with staggering regularity! I see lazy, half-effort defense everywhere! The offense is spectacular, but this is the Finals! To say nothing of the regular season. Do that in today's NBA, and you're going to get killed.


Is Einstein a lesser scientist than Hawkings? Hawkings knew everything that Einstein came up with, but added new research of his own, but it's doubtful that Hawkings could ever came up with what something as revolutionary as Einstein did during his days.

A similar parallel could be drawn for basketball players. LeBron James learned from Kobe, who learned from Jordan, who learned from Dr. J, who learned from David Thompson, who learned from Elgin Baylor. Earlier players came up with creative moves and raised the bar, and later players built on that. Nobody since Wilt opened up the game of basketball Wilt did, strictly from an athletic front, until probably about Robinson and Hakeem entered the game.

I'm not sure you can draw such parallels between a science and a sport. For starters, science relies on empiric knowledge of experiments and knowledge performed beforehand. Basketball does not. Unless you'd care to explain Tim Duncan, who was never really interested in basketball and certainly wasn't a student of the game, walking onto Wake Forest as a freshman and dominating the varsity players from day 1?

The counter to your argument is thus: If Wilt was the first truly dominant bigman of the game, then other players are limited by him, because he was the first. Just like Hawking is unable to make a discovery like relativity, because of the fact that science is more nuanced today than in the past, today's players are unable to make the drastic leap forward in ability/production that Wilt did, and therefore, no matter how great they are, will not be looked upon the same as he was, rendering any comparisons moot and biased by their very nature.


BTW, the 60's had great centers in Russell, Thurmond, and then later Unseld and Jabbar. The center position had sucked for the last decade or so, partly because of rule changes that caters to perimeter oriented players, but also because the decrease in skills in the position.

The idea remains that if you insert David Robinson or Hakeem into the 60s, they probably would have been absolutely unstoppable, much like Hakeem was.


There hasn't been a dominant big man drafted since Duncan in 97. That is a 12 year drought of subpar big man. While Ming and Howard are good, they are unlikely to achieve the status of big man such as Wilt, Jabbar, Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, or Robinson. We are looking at the Ewings or and the Unselds, who are, while great, are not legendary.

Howard could still get there. He needs to add polish to his offensive game, but if he develops a mid-range jumper and improves his footwork, he could be a nightmare for other teams.

[4down]

A fair point, and I agree. However, I'm not sure just simply stating that Wilt > everyone else is an unassailable comment, either.


Okay, I understand the advances, but when I watch NBA FINALS games from the 80s, which are usually the two best teams playing, I see defenders sagging back and giving wide open jumpshots to other players, 15-18 feet from the hoop with staggering regularity. To say nothing of the regular season. Do that in today's NBA, and you're going to get killed.


I'm not sure you can draw such parallels between a science and a sport. For starters, science relies on empiric knowledge of experiments and knowledge performed beforehand. Basketball does not. Unless you'd care to explain Tim Duncan, who was never really interested in basketball and certainly wasn't a student of the game, walking onto Wake Forest as a freshman and dominating the varsity players from day 1?

The counter to your argument is thus: If Wilt was the first truly dominant bigman of the game, then other players are limited by him, because he was the first. Just like Hawking is unable to make a discovery like relativity, because of the fact that science is more nuanced today than in the past, today's players are unable to make the drastic leap forward in ability/production that Wilt did, and therefore, no matter how great they are, will not be looked upon the same as he was, rendering any comparisons moot and biased by their very nature.



The idea remains that if you insert David Robinson or Hakeem into the 60s, they probably would have been absolutely unstoppable, much like Hakeem was.



Howard could still get there. He needs to add polish to his offensive game, but if he develops a mid-range jumper and improves his footwork, he could be a nightmare for other teams.


Exactcly. Cars are faster and more responsive now too than in the 50's and 60's and that is because these great scientists, standing on the shoulders of the right giants, have figured out ways to improve at increasingly impressive rates. It's a flawed argument though - apples and oranges.

awesome that we can appreciate the legends of old as well as the greatness we get to see live and up close in real time.

The idea that Howard may not get there may be true, but it is also true that Wilt was like Gulliver among the Lilliputians, whereas Howard has a lot of athleticism overall to contend with. Not to say the guys in the past were chopped liver, just that in terms of pure athleticism, the league has improved as a whole. Wilt was a giant among men. I won't fault him for that, but I'd like to see just how well all these greats would have fared amongst each other, and think it would have been a lot closer than some think.

Glad to see this evolving back into a basketball discussion, sort of.

I can't wait for the season to start.

[howbouthemspurs]

Wilt was far beyond his generation. I think he would still have those gaudy numbers in todays NBA. He is in a catagory all his own that no one will ever reach.

But I still think David Robinson was more athletic than WIlt. But that's just me.

[Brutalis]

Um, no disrespect but DRob would be schooling the shit out of Dwight pre back injury.

[ohmwrecker]

First of all, the question is between Robinson (in his prime) and Howard (now). The answer is, obviously, Robinson. I don't know how Wilt and Hakeem got in this conversation, but you might as well throw Bill Russell in there too. Russell was Wilt's greatest opponent in his prime and a pretty stellar athlete in his time.

[Spursone]

First of all we are assuming in the question that Howard and Robinson are the most atheletic centers of all time. Assuming that premis I would say unequivically Robinson over Howard. Robinson was a beast, passionate, had foot work, could block, great rebounder, LEADER, and most of all he could shoot. 73 points in a game! I don't think Howard's offense comes close to Robinson's.

I still think that Akeem Olajawon was still a better center than Robinson or Howard. He was one of the last Centers that actually played the post position.

Go Spurs Go!:downspin:l

[Cry Havoc]

I decided to search in my Wilt book "A View From Above" for a picture of Wilt's athletic ability and this is the best out of the ones I found. It is around a 50 to 55 inch verticle on a warm up standing jump when Wilt is not at his highest point.

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n70/THE_K_SCHO/standingjump.jpg

First of all... wtf is wrong with his head? Does he emit an angelic glow that blocks out some of the stadium?

I'm not attempting to start an argument here, but I found this quote from Wilt:

"What's unfortunate is that most people regard the great leapers as being only the short guys who could dunk," said the 7-1 1/16 Wilt Chamberlain. "My sergeant [vertical leap] was higher than Michael Jordan's. When I went to Kansas, they had a 12-foot basket in the gym, because Dr. Phog Allen was advocating the 12-foot basket. I used to dunk on that basket. It was an effort, but I could do it."

Now, this is interesting. Because if we are to assume Wilt has a standing reach of 9'6", and can jump 54" into the air from a standstill, that puts the top of his hands at his jump right at 14' (we can assume maybe 3-4" higher at least, with a running start). This means if he can really jump that high, he would be almost head-level with a 12 foot rim. It would be almost effortless for him to dunk on a 12 foot hoop, if his claims about his leaping are to be believed. It also means that he could probably be almost stomach level or better with a standard rim, from a flat-footed jump. And yet he never did anything of the sort while on the court, whether it be in a game or showing off.

When the best athlete in the NBA today probably cannot vertical over 45", I have to question the consistency here. A 54+" flat-footed vertical is unheard of.

- * Wilt Chamberlain claims that his sergeant, during his prime, was "46 to 48 inches, easy." [2]

Again a discrepancy. And least of all, that photograph is EXTREMELY suspect. Old pictures were doctored all the time, even before photoshop.

I'm not attempting to call Chamberlain's greatness into question, but I'm just miffed as to the differences here.

[elbamba]

I can go on about Wilt, so I will.

Just to bring something up, Wilt still hold the records for minutes per game in a season and in a career. No one will ikely ever break either, especially the minutes per game in a season.

Cy Young has pitching records that will never be touched, do you think he could do it today?

[whottt]

I don't know where everyone is getting this angle that Howard is a slam dunk in the strength department over the Admiral...the Admiral was the only guy in the league that could defend Shaq and hold him to mortal numbers. Which he did right up to the very last season of his career.

Upperbodywise Howard's got a good set of shoulders on him...but get fucking serious, he doesn't have the guns Drob did. Takes incredible arm strength to do a handstand( go do it even if you don't believe me, and you probably won't be lifting 250 like the Admiral was), even more to do it the length of a basketball court.


Hakeem was a great defender but his offense was very much a part of his defense(I don't mean drawing fouls like Drob did it), I mean he flat out wore people out with his offense and didn't leave them much left for their own offense, plus he had very quick hands that produced a shitload of steal for a bigman...Honestly, Hakeem's game was pretty much a twin of Duncan's, kicked peoples asses with his scoring skill, played great team D...just sub the bank shot for the for the Dream Shake. And Hakeem had quicker hands whereas I think Duncan is stronger than Hakeem was.

Drob OTOH was a one on one physical mismatch for any player in the league...there was no bigman faster than he was, and Shaq was about the only guy stronger. It took multiple players to stop Drob...yes he could be stopped by a physical doubleteam(usually because the fouls weren't getting called due to all the bodies surrounding him) more easily than Duncan or Hakeem, but he could beat a one on one matchup with his speed like no other bigman other than maybe Shaq utilizing his strength.


Drob won a scoring title...and his scoring was the weakest part of his game. And he didn't win that scoring title because he spent 10 hours a day in the gym polishing his game from JR high on...

They just gave his ass the basketball a bunch and he just fucking did it...

Because he fucking could. Simple as that.

He was the first C in 20 or so years do it...and he and Wilt are the only C's to ever put up 70+points in a game. And unlike Drob, offense was the best part of Wilt's game.


Think about that for a second.

[Cry Havoc]

When Wilt dunked in game it was mostly off 1 step a dribble and a man between him and the basket. That might be what he meant by an effort. However in Wilt's book he had pictures that show he is clearly above 50 inches from the ground and he talks about his amazing jumping ability a few times. In another book there are two stories that come to mind.

One is when Wilt was bet $50 that he couldn't grab a quarter off the top of the back board. Wilt asked for a quarter, walked up to a basket took 1 step an placed the quarter on top of the back board. Then when he landed he quickly sprang back up and grabed the quarter.

Another was when he was coaching in the aba in his late 30s and a practice ball got stuck above the back board. None of these great athletes (one of which was rumored he could touch the top pf back boards) could reach the ball stuck about 14 feet in the air. So Wilt took off his nice leather shoes and knocked the ball out.

Basically what Wilt is saying is that he could, without running, vertical high enough to put his wrist above the top of a backboard.

Sorry, I just don't see that as being humanly possible. People exaggerated all the time back then, and if it sold tickets, why wouldn't they? There were no standards for measuring jumps back then, at least none were officially measured. I'm going to need a lot more than hearsay and sketchy photographs to back up a 7'1" player claiming that he could out jump pretty much every other human being on the planet from a flat-footed position.

[whottt]

Basically what Wilt is saying is that he could, without running, vertical high enough to put his wrist above the top of a backboard.

Sorry, I just don't see that as being humanly possible. People exaggerated all the time back then, and if it sold tickets, why wouldn't they? There were no standards for measuring jumps back then, at least none were officially measured. I'm going to need a lot more than hearsay and sketchy photographs to back up a 7'1" player claiming that he could out jump pretty much every other human being on the planet from a flat-footed position.

You do realize Wilt was a high jump champion in the big 8 right, in track?

I actually do believe Wilt could jump higher(in terms of actual hight reached if not distance from the ground) than any body on planet standing, as there aren't many 7' high jump champions. In fact Wilt may be the only one in history. There is a certain mechanics to jumping...


I remember watching this 40 year old man on American Gladiators once upon a time...they had this bungee jumping event where you had to grab velcroed balls off a pole in the middle of the arena...the highest level was red, second highest was white, lowest level was blue...

I watched that event hundreds of times and saw a contender or two barely manage to get maybe one or two of those red balls in all of those times I watched it...took what seemed to be superhuman effort to grab one just barely with their finger tips.

The day this 40 year old man was in the event he pretty much cleaned the whole fucking level of red balls...on his very first jump, grabbed like 4 of them, it was like he was from a different planet...and he was just averaged size guy, maybe 6', maybe 170lbs. Looked every bit of 40 years old.

Turned out he was a former Olympic Pole vaulter(was never even champion)...but what he did was completely unnatural looking, he just knew how to jump. Wilt did too...

[Chieflion]

If basketball did not exist back then, and track was available for Wilt, he might have done all the inhuman things in track, looking at old clips and all.

[whottt]

I'd put any amount of money on it though that Wilt couldn't walk the length of basketball court on his hands. And even though he looks pretty fast in the video I have seen...he doesn't look as fast Drob does. It's entirely possible that Drob was the fastest player in the NBA early in his career. He was faster than AJ...and AJ was fast.

Pretty sure he could beat Tony Parker in windsprints in his final year in the league(I'm pretty sure I've heard Tony or Pop mention that before).

I do not think it's out of the question that the Admiral was the better athlete of the two...I'm not saying I'm certain like I am with other bigman to ever play, but I do think it's possible...

Since Shoogar is the only one that's actually seen Wilt play I give his opinion some weight...but he's not exactly known for his staunch past defenses of the Admiral.

All I know is that the Admiral is probably the best athlete I've seen in my lifetime, in any sport, definitely in basketball, 7 footer or not.

Michael Jordan is not the best athlete and he's usually the one people throw out there...the best athlete wouldn't hit at the Mendoza line playing minor league ball.

[whottt]

Howard should never be mentioned in any category with Robinson. Wilt, then Hakeem were the most athletic. I'd put a David behind them.

And you are quite simply on dangerous amounts of crack if you think Hakeem was a better athlete than Drob was. Hakeem had about the same level of athleticism as Tim Duncan. Duncan might even be more athletic, and he's been playing on one knee since the 2000 season.

[Cry Havoc]

And you are quite simply on dangerous amounts of crack if you think Hakeem was a better athlete than Drob was. Hakeem had about the same level of athleticism as Tim Duncan. Duncan might even be more athletic, and he's been playing on one knee since the 2000 season.

Dude, consider who posted that, and then ask yourself if he's ever had a solid, legitimate, unbiased take on anything.

[whottt]

Anyone who ever knew Wilt personally and got to see this side of him knew that he was some kind of fictional character out of a fairy tale.


David Robinson has done some fictional things too...you let me know how many 6'4 gymnasts you've seen in your lifetime.

I'm just going to throw this out there...

David Robinson is the only C besides Wilt to put up 70 points in a game.
He and Kareem are the only players to lead the league in scoring, boards and blocks.
He and Michael Jordan are the only players to win a scoring title and DPOY award.


Difference between David Robinson and them?


David Robinson played no highschool basketball.

I repeat, the man played no highschool basketball.

I won't go into the other non-athleticism based almost fiction like achievements, like qualifying for MENSA with SAT score, or keeping a running total(including tax)in his head of the bill when his mom won a supermarket shopping spree...

But you get the non-fictional point right?


In 1996 David Robinson was the career leader in Olympic blocks, the all time leader in NBA blocks per game(his numbers went down after his injury), and held the NCAA record for career blocks, blocks in a season and single season blocks per game...

Once again for emphasis, the man played no highschool basketball.

I'll give you Wilt could jump higher(which is definitely a premium talent on the basketball court)....I won't give you any other field of athleticism at least not without a better argument, this argument is about the best athlete, not just the highest jumper.


I can take one look at Wilt's body type and see pretty easily he probably wasn't going to walk the lenght of a basketball court on his hands either.

[ShoogarBear]

Since Shoogar is the only one that's actually seen Wilt play I give his opinion some weight...but he's not exactly known for his staunch past defenses of the Admiral.

Would it help if I said something nice about the Coyote here?

[ShoogarBear]

David Robinson played no highschool basketball.

I repeat, the man played no highschool basketball.



*gasp* . . . robinson228 you ain't. Very shocking and disappointing.



By his senior year in high school he was 6 feet, 7 inches tall, but he had not played organized basketball. When the coach added the tall senior to the basketball team, Robinson earned all-area and all-district honors




It wasn't until his senior year at Osbourne Park High School that friends coaxed Robinson into trying out for the varsity. He made it—and was named to several local all-star teams.

[whottt]

*gasp* . . . robinson228 you ain't. Very shocking and disappointing.




Shit...maybe it was Rodman that played no highschool basketball then. Ah well...Ok, he played no highschool basketball till his SR yr of highschool then.

My bad.


I still stand by the point.

Hmmm...that article doesn't seem right though, I don't believe David Robinson was 6'7 in highschool...

If so then he was actually 6'7 instead of 6'4 when he qualified for the Naval Gymnastics Team....which is even more sickening.

[ShoogarBear]

Shit...maybe it was Rodman that played no highschool basketball then.

Certainly understandable. Hardcore knowledgeable Spurs fans are known to get the two confused all the time.



Hmmm...that article doesn't seem right though, I don't believe David Robinson was 6'7 in highschool...

If so then he was actually 6'7 instead of 6'4 when he qualified for the Naval Gymnastics Team....which is even more sickening.


I'm pretty sure he was 6'7". The story I remember is his growing six inches in a year.

And now will you please stop editing this post? You're stepping on my jokes.

[whottt]

Certainly understandable. Hardcore knowledgeable Spurs fans are known to get the two confused all the time.

DR/DR

I keep my filing system and my fandom separate. Besides, even I didn't know who Drob was in highschool.

And even IBM's get glitches on occasion.

I like you much better when you stick to humor btw.

[whottt]

Certainly understandable. Hardcore knowledgeable Spurs fans are known to get the two confused all the time.



I'm pretty sure he was 6'7". The story I remember is his growing six inches in a year.

And now will you please stop editing this post? You're stepping on my jokes.



I just want to say thanks for reminding me what training camp is all about :tu

[whottt]

I'm pretty sure he was 6'7". The story I remember is his growing six inches in a year.


I've thought it was that he grew 7 inchest while in the Navy, like in the span of year...

If he was 6'7 in highschool and grew 7(or 6) inches period in the Navy that means he's 7'4.

Hmm...I might have to call BS on that entire wiki article.

[bishopospurs]

I am a little late to the party, but I vote D Rob as most athletic. I also wanted to point out 6 or 7 inches added to 6'7 would be 7'1 or 7'2, I am just sayin.

[whottt]

I am a little late to the party, but I vote D Rob as most athletic. I also wanted to point out 6 or 7 inches added to 6'7 would be 7'1 or 7'2, I am just sayin.


Two words...

Off
Season.

[ShoogarBear]

Two words...

Off
Season.

For what, the National Arithmetic Association?

[Cry Havoc]

For what, the National Arithmetic Association?

:lmao

Shoog never fails to land some sig worthy quotes in a thread when he really feels the need.

[Drachen]

Did you read the post? I acknowledged my own lack of knowledge of all of Chamberlains athletic accomplishments, so thoughtfully prvided in the wikipedia link above.

I am not however, so blinded by rose colored visions of the past as to ignore the superior athletic competition the modern NBA has to offer. If you think the NBA was better in the 50's than it is now, by all means, go on with your nostalgic ramblings.

The only reason Olajuwon, Howard, and Robinson did not similarly dominate the college track and field days of their time, was that they never competed in them.

P.S. Instead of just using your time to call someone ignorant in an inane post of your own, why not bring a take? Something legit. I'm up for discussion.


Honestly, what you are doing is the same as the following:

I personally have never met, seen, or talked to 4down, but I mean come on, the guy has Herpes and 1 leg.

[4down]

Honestly, what you are doing is the same as the following:

I personally have never met, seen, or talked to 4down, but I mean come on, the guy has Herpes and 1 leg.

Fair enough. that was a bad post. Abchang can be vindicated in his criticism.

In reality I have seen film - not a lot, but enough to know that it ain't for sure that he was hands down a better ahlete than Drob or Howard.

Who told you I had herpes? :lol

[ambchang]

A fair point, and I agree. However, I'm not sure just simply stating that Wilt > everyone else is an unassailable comment, either.

There were many arguments throughout the thread before I chimed in, whatever I could say would probably just repeat what was said.


Okay, I understand the advances, but when I watch NBA FINALS games from the 80s, which are usually the two best teams playing, I see defenders sagging back and giving wide open jumpshots to other players, 15-18 feet from the hoop with staggering regularity! I see lazy, half-effort defense everywhere! The offense is spectacular, but this is the Finals! To say nothing of the regular season. Do that in today's NBA, and you're going to get killed.

That has much more to do with change in defensive philosphies rather than individual abilities. Before the Pistons, defense was an afterthought, and the speed in which the game evolved in the 90s since the success of the Pistons demonstrated that the players have the ability to change along with the game.

I watched those games as well, and while defense certainly sucked back in the day, another part of it was also there were great passers as well. People fawn over the passing abilities of Nash and Kidd, but it just doesn't compare to those of Magic and Bird, who not only passes to a player for open shots, but create scoring opportunities by passing to an area where their teammates should go. They just see the game 3 steps ahead of everyone else.


I'm not sure you can draw such parallels between a science and a sport. For starters, science relies on empiric knowledge of experiments and knowledge performed beforehand. Basketball does not. Unless you'd care to explain Tim Duncan, who was never really interested in basketball and certainly wasn't a student of the game, walking onto Wake Forest as a freshman and dominating the varsity players from day 1?

The point was that players and teams do learn from those of the past. The Knicks and Rockets had that bruising defensive philosophy from the Pistons, the Spurs in turn evolved the Rockets defensive philosophies and offensive game by having the dominate big + 4 shooters model, which evolved by adding new offensive wrinkles with the penetration of Parker and Ginobili.

On an individual stand point, Jabbar (I think) created the reverse dunk to shield the ball from a blocker using the rim, Cousy invented the behind the back dribble, Tim Hardaway popularized the killer cross over done by Nate Archibald, and was since improved upon by Allen Iverson, Hakeem learned his ball fake from some teammate during his college day (don't remember the name), and kept improving it to be part of his dream shake. People learn from others who played before them, take the good parts, improve upon them and make it great.


The counter to your argument is thus: If Wilt was the first truly dominant bigman of the game, then other players are limited by him, because he was the first. Just like Hawking is unable to make a discovery like relativity, because of the fact that science is more nuanced today than in the past, today's players are unable to make the drastic leap forward in ability/production that Wilt did, and therefore, no matter how great they are, will not be looked upon the same as he was, rendering any comparisons moot and biased by their very nature.

Players, and Scientists, can certainly break new grounds though the years. Sure it was much easier back in the day for Socrates to come up with new theories when there was absolutely no study on the subject of science, the Newtons and the Einsteins break new ground by discovering aspects of life that has never been thought before. Life, and the universe, is so complicated that we as humans probably haven't explored a minute part of it.

Sure, basketball is not as complicated as the universe, but we have seen advances being made in the game in every decade, Jabbar with his skyhook, Magic and Bird with their passing, Jordan with his dominance at the guard position, Duncan with his bank shots, Shaq with his combination of agility and power. I am sure I am going to see the games of LeBron James evolve to a new level, and it's also a reason I would not consider Kobe Bryant as one of the best of all time, because he tried to hard to emulate what Jordan did, and lost his own signature.


The idea remains that if you insert David Robinson or Hakeem into the 60s, they probably would have been absolutely unstoppable, much like Hakeem was.

I am sure they would, and I am sure Wilt and Russell would have dominated in the 80's, 90's and 00's.



Howard could still get there. He needs to add polish to his offensive game, but if he develops a mid-range jumper and improves his footwork, he could be a nightmare for other teams.

I am still not sold on Howard. His offense is still far away, and his defense is based more on athleticism than understanding of the game. I would love to see him dominate one day, because he is really a showman and a joy to watch, but I doubt he could ever attain the level of a Shaq or an Hakeem.

[newacc]

Wilt footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ucfpGWfhDU) vs. David footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGKMOT8yDH4)

Wilt gets blocked twice in his own highlight reel. Wilt was legendary in his own right, but let's not put a blue ox by his side.

[4down]

his defense is based more on athleticism than understanding of the game.

Is he as athletic as those guys, though? My biased opinion is that David was more athletic, but Dwight is a beast.

[ambchang]

Another bit about Robinson, I am sure I have read somewhere that he was golfing in the low 70's the first time he picked up a golf club. That's the level of coordination and control you are dealing with.

[4down]

Wilt footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ucfpGWfhDU) vs. David footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGKMOT8yDH4)

Wilt gets blocked twice in his own highlight reel. Wilt was legendary in his own right, but let's not put a blue ox by his side.


Bingo - although the hook shot in wilts video around 1:18 was money.

[whottt]

Other than things listed that were later proven to be different,

Are you talking about the one year of highschool vs no highschool? That pretty much changes nothing...it's the difference between 1 and 0.



I do not believe there was a defensive player of the year award while Wilt was playing, and blocked shots were not an official stat until after Wilt retired.

And Wilt still has no rep as any sort of a defensive stalwart...




I couldn't answer the question of Wilt being able to walk on his hands, but Wilt was the fastest player on all of his teams in the 60s and it wasn't even close.

It's more impressive if David Robinson was the fastest player on all of his teams. And there's an interview with Pop right now that confirms he was the fastest player on his team when he entered the league(and I've seen interviews that he actually could outrun Tony Parker, even in his final year).




However, blocked shots were kept by team stat takers and Wilt averaged a triple double in points, rebounds and blocked shots. Had record been kept his blocked shots numbers would blow Hakeem's way out of the water.





I'll look up a quick video of Wilt when he played with the Globbies later. In case you didn't know though, Medowlark Lemon played center on that team and Wilt played guard, so in this video Wilt pulls off at least one move I believe that you would think was a guard (partly because it was, he was just 7'1")


David was pretty much the PG of the 94 team...he didn't lead the league in assists, but up better assists number than any other C of his era(and I think Chris Webber is the only PF or C since to beat David's 4.8 outside of Garnett
s typically high numbers), but then again bigman assists are the measure of double teams as much as anything else, and there's no doubt Wilt faced a great many of them.

But I still don't believe he was faster than Drob, and I don't believe he was any stronger either.


We should get some video and see just how fast they were....


It's a no-brainer that Wilt doesn't have David's arms.

[whottt]

For what, the National Arithmetic Association?

sure, I'll take that. Arguing height is usually something you only do in basketball arguments and height isn't necessarily true arithmetic...


You get points for being funny of course, but I'm still pulling the out of condition card(and waiving it).

[Rummpd]

The answer is so obvious and is Wilt as stated above:
Wilt was a world class athlete as a sprinter, high jumper and without weight training was strong as a bull.

Robinson > Howard and even a young Shaq might be greater than Howard who is a great leaper but what else?

[ambchang]

Wilt footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ucfpGWfhDU) vs. David footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGKMOT8yDH4)

Wilt gets blocked twice in his own highlight reel. Wilt was legendary in his own right, but let's not put a blue ox by his side.

Only that it was the greatest blocker in the history of the league, Bill Russell.

And let's face it, everybody gets blocked in the NBA at one point or another.

[whottt]

Wilt footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ucfpGWfhDU) vs. David footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGKMOT8yDH4)

Wilt gets blocked twice in his own highlight reel. Wilt was legendary in his own right, but let's not put a blue ox by his side.

I challenge anyone to watch those videos and tell me Wilt was in the same stratosphere of speed or quickness as Drob.

Drob just looks like he runs in a totally different gear than anyone else, and that's against modern NBA players.

That footage of Wilt is obviously slowed down, but he's still not anywhere close to Drob.

And Drob being faster than any body else on his team is a hell of a lot more impressive than Wilt being able to make that claim.

[JamStone]

Wilt was a collegiate level high jumper, and that's without putting much practice or training into it. If Wilt were around today and trained the way athletes trained today with all the advances in conditioning, weight-training, and nutrition, he'd easily be a world class high jumper.

There's a distinction to be made, as often there needs to be with comparisons that pit individual athletes from different eras. I probably agree with the notion that David Robinson is the fastest among those mentioned in the thread. But, if we break it down to natural athletic ability, I think everything we know about Wilt Chamberlain would give him the edge overall athletically.

We're talking about him being in an era where there was little to no weight lifting for basketball players, probably little to no isometric training, certainly not the advancement in nutrition and cardio conditioning there is now. With what we know about Wilt, and granted a lot of it could be exaggerated to some varying degrees, I think there's a strong case for him being the most naturally gifted athlete in the history of the NBA.

The claims that he played against a bunch of 5'11" white guys are outrageously ignorant. I don't really believe that Wilt had a 50 inch vertical. But, I believe that if there are enough people who were in the know that contended it, he was probably in the neighborhood. And, a 45-48 inch vertical for a 7'1", 275-290 lbs guy is still pretty incredible. He has his high school times of a 10.9 second 100 yard dash and 49 second 440 yard run in the books. Neither are close to world record times, but are pretty impressive for a guy his size and probably not the best he could have done since that was high school. I believe (and this is from memory of reading and watching stuff about Wilt) that his best in high jump is 6'8" or 6'9" and that's with little time and training put into it. Again, with actual time, effort, and training, I could see him getting close to clearing a 7 foot bar.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet either, but after he retired from the NBA, he played several years of professional volleyball as well.

Wilt was the first real "athletic freak" in the NBA. Based on purely "natural" athletic ability, I don't know if there was, is, or will be a greater athlete than him in the NBA, center position or otherwise.

[whottt]

Wilt was a collegiate level high jumper, and that's without putting much practice or training into it. If Wilt were around today and trained the way athletes trained today with all the advances in conditioning, weight-training, and nutrition, he'd easily be a world class high jumper.

There's a distinction to be made, as often there needs to be with comparisons that pit individual athletes from different eras. I probably agree with the notion that David Robinson is the fastest among those mentioned in the thread. But, if we break it down to natural athletic ability, I think everything we know about Wilt Chamberlain would give him the edge overall athletically.

We're talking about him being in an era where there was little to no weight lifting for basketball players, probably little to no isometric training, certainly not the advancement in nutrition and cardio conditioning there is now. With what we know about Wilt, and granted a lot of it could be exaggerated to some varying degrees, I think there's a strong case for him being the most naturally gifted athlete in the history of the NBA.

The claims that he played against a bunch of 5'11" white guys are outrageously ignorant. I don't really believe that Wilt had a 50 inch vertical. But, I believe that if there are enough people who were in the know that contended it, he was probably in the neighborhood. And, a 45-48 inch vertical for a 7'1", 275-290 lbs guy is still pretty incredible. He has his high school times of a 10.9 second 100 yard dash and 49 second 440 yard run in the books. Neither are close to world record times, but are pretty impressive for a guy his size and probably not the best he could have done since that was high school. I believe (and this is from memory of reading and watching stuff about Wilt) that his best in high jump is 6'8" or 6'9" and that's with little time and training put into it. Again, with actual time, effort, and training, I could see him getting close to clearing a 7 foot bar.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet either, but after he retired from the NBA, he played several years of professional volleyball as well.

Wilt was the first real "athletic freak" in the NBA. Based on purely "natural" athletic ability, I don't know if there was, is, or will be a greater athlete than him in the NBA, center position or otherwise.


That's one of the better arguments I've seen from you, but I can still look at the video and see Wilt didn't have David's physique and David's got gymnasts arms, produced by muscle extension, which is the strongest muscle development there is, not body builders produced by muscle contraction and those guys that Wilt was playing against definitely weren't as advanced as the atheletes David played against.



I'll just put it another way, I can also look at the video and see Wilt was an extremely skilled offensive player with a great deal of natural touch and feel for the game...part of what made him Wilt Chamberlain was his skill, as well as his athletecism.


David did what he did just because he could do things, a lot of them, phbysically that no one else of his size(and even smaller) could do.


David Robinson accomplished things that only players like Wilt or Karreem accomplished...and it was almost entirely predicated upon athletecism, moreso than it was when they themselves accomplished those feats.



I still say Wilt was unquestionably the greatest player to ever step foot on a basketball court, I do not think putting him in a comparison with the Admiral on sheer athletecism is an argument that was decided before it even began though. There is definitely room to speculate David was his match or even his superior as an athlete.


There just are no other 7 footers that moved like David Robinson did...


As mentioned earlier, David Robinson had a freaking 6-7 inch growth spurt after joining the Navy...


It's almost like his body didn't have time to get slower as it got bigger like is the typical case with bigmen....he has the movements of a much smaller man.

[Bandwagon Spurs Fan]

who's David Robinson?

[big daddy russ]

I haven't read the whole thing, but I will say that D-Rob at age 28 or 29 (his prime) was a better pure athlete than Howard is now. The way he moved, his body control, and his level of coordination was amazing. Not only that, but most people forget how explosive he was because he was so effortless doing it.

It's close race, though, and Dwight could well pass up The Admiral within the next few years. He's undoubtedly the most athletic pure center to come along since Robinson and Hakeem, and I'd already put him as one of the 5 most athletic centers of all-time.

[2Cleva]

All I know is that Wilt wouldn't have been put to sleep by Karl Malone.

[whottt]

All I know is that Wilt wouldn't have been put to sleep by Karl Malone.

Wilt had the soft / no heart label too you know.

And Karl Malone finished his career like 0-20 in games against Drob after that incident...including being held scoreless by David in a game in his final season.

[DaBears]

Dont Dis DAVID ROBINSONS legacy by comparing him to a guy who hasnt accomplished jack on the court or off.........

When he donates 12-million of his own money to do something for others outside of basketball then compare them... But dont mention them in the same sentence let alone try to compare the 2 basketball wise.

[whottt]

Out of everything you brought up this is the one that is easily the most wrong. People today don't know it, but Wilt was a better defender than he was an offensive player. When he was coming out of college after averaging just under 30 ppg he was known for his defense. There were stories that if Jerry West was lighting up a Wilt team, Wilt would leave the post and lock down West. The only downside to that was there was no dominating defender to grab the rebounds and block shots, but West was not a worry anymore.

Eh...I gotta go to work, I'll be back for the rebuttal later. For now I may have posted some fatual details in error, but I didn't invalidat any arguments I've been making. I got two facts wrong, one one of those errors served to enhance my argument(sligthly) the other one served to hurt it...

So focusing on small details and attempting to argue that has somehow invalidated my arguments is pretty weak and reeks of grasping for straws.

I feel I've been pretty unbiased, even bolstering some of the Wilt arguments where I felt it was deserved...whereas you are pretty much focusing on unsubstantiated talk, and conceding nothing to David...discounting a great deal of factual informartion in his favor in the process...


IOW, Wilt does not have reputation for being a great defensive player. And block stats kept by team stat keepers before there was even an agreed upon definition of a block doesn't really serve as ironclad proof.

I imagine he probably was hell of a shotblocker...but you are saying man who registerd like, no block totals, blocked more shots than anyone in the history of the game? That is pure runaway speculation and conjecture...and unacceptable as either logic or fact.

[whottt]

Not only that but David was a better FT shooter, and not because he practiced his free throws, or took more of them. It's simply because he exceptionally coordinated beyond the typical bigman.

[Drachen]

Wilt footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ucfpGWfhDU) vs. David footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGKMOT8yDH4)

Wilt gets blocked twice in his own highlight reel. Wilt was legendary in his own right, but let's not put a blue ox by his side.

The only really impressive thing (athletically) that I saw in that video of wilt was the block on the skyhook toward the end.



* oh and the game was most certainly played at a far slower pace back then :D

[newacc]

Wilt was a collegiate level high jumper, and that's without putting much practice or training into it. If Wilt were around today and trained the way athletes trained today with all the advances in conditioning, weight-training, and nutrition, he'd easily be a world class high jumper.

There's a distinction to be made, as often there needs to be with comparisons that pit individual athletes from different eras. I probably agree with the notion that David Robinson is the fastest among those mentioned in the thread. But, if we break it down to natural athletic ability, I think everything we know about Wilt Chamberlain would give him the edge overall athletically.

We're talking about him being in an era where there was little to no weight lifting for basketball players, probably little to no isometric training, certainly not the advancement in nutrition and cardio conditioning there is now. With what we know about Wilt, and granted a lot of it could be exaggerated to some varying degrees, I think there's a strong case for him being the most naturally gifted athlete in the history of the NBA.

The claims that he played against a bunch of 5'11" white guys are outrageously ignorant. I don't really believe that Wilt had a 50 inch vertical. But, I believe that if there are enough people who were in the know that contended it, he was probably in the neighborhood. And, a 45-48 inch vertical for a 7'1", 275-290 lbs guy is still pretty incredible. He has his high school times of a 10.9 second 100 yard dash and 49 second 440 yard run in the books. Neither are close to world record times, but are pretty impressive for a guy his size and probably not the best he could have done since that was high school. I believe (and this is from memory of reading and watching stuff about Wilt) that his best in high jump is 6'8" or 6'9" and that's with little time and training put into it. Again, with actual time, effort, and training, I could see him getting close to clearing a 7 foot bar.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet either, but after he retired from the NBA, he played several years of professional volleyball as well.

Wilt was the first real "athletic freak" in the NBA. Based on purely "natural" athletic ability, I don't know if there was, is, or will be a greater athlete than him in the NBA, center position or otherwise.

The woulda coulda stuff is weak. It's basically a concession that David was more athletic than Wilt - which he was.

Wilt had nowhere near a 50 inch vertical. That was as big a lie as his 20,000 women claim. If a 7 footer had a 50 inch verticle, I guarantee he wouldn't need to float up those weak no look, quick flip finger rolls around the post. Nor would all his dunks be of such low elevation...The video truth is that most of his dunks weren't too far above the rim. Moreover, it doesn't even look like he had the coordination to catch an alley oop with a defender around him.

Wilt's athletic prowess has been embellished. David Robinson was by far the more athletic of the two. It's not even really close and you can look at video after video to prove it. Wilt's athleticism was more akin to Robinson in his last years.

[JamStone]

It's not weak to qualify eras. It's what it is.

You put Usain Bolt in the 1940s, he's not running a 9.58 100 meters. You put Barry Bonds in the 1960s, he doesn't hit 73 HRs in a season.

You have to take into consideration the time/era and what advantages athletes in each era have. Technology in nutrition, conditioning, and weight lifting absolutely should play a factor in this analysis. Would David Robinson have those arms if he didn't lift weights?

That's why I qualified my comments by saying "natural" athletic ability.

[Nathan Explosion]

Wilt had nowhere near a 50 inch vertical. That was as big a lie as his 20,000 women claim. If a 7 footer had a 50 inch verticle, I guarantee he wouldn't need to float up those weak no look, quick flip finger rolls around the post. Nor would all his dunks be of such low elevation...The video truth is that most of his dunks weren't too far above the rim. Moreover, it doesn't even look like he had the coordination to catch an alley oop with a defender around him.


In Wilt's NBA.com bio it said that he won the Big 8 high jump title with a leap of 6'6". That's not to say it's his personal best. But to say the guy can't jump is absolutely ridiculous considering he was a HIGH JUMP CHAMPION. DRob is among the most athletic players ever, no doubt, but Wilt was off the charts. Wilt was over 300 lbs for a good portion of his career but that didn't hurt him one bit.


Big-league volleyball attracted his energies for a while, as did tennis, running marathons and even polo. At one point he hoped to challenge Muhammad Ali to a world heavyweight fight.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html

I never saw Wilt play, but at least I have a concept of what an amazing human specimen the guy was. There will never be another Wilt in our lifetime.

Now, onto the original "argument" of Howard vs DRob. This isn't even an argument. DRob in a landslide. DRob could run with guards, jump out of the building and was strong. He looks slender but tipped the scales at 250, pure muscle. People are such in a "now" mode that they have no sense of history (see Wilt Chamberlain). I once heard Mark Jackson say that Kobe was as good a 2 guard as the league has ever seen, completely forgetting that Jackson actually played against Jordan.

Further evidence of this "now" perception is that Dwight and Amare are players doing things unseen before. However, just going back to last decade you had Robinson, Hakeem and even Shawn Kemp doing things Amare has done. And young Shaq was just as athletic as Dwight. Here's a good video just showing some of the athleticism of DRob.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iKzLrGHU3k

[newacc]

In Wilt's NBA.com bio it said that he won the Big 8 high jump title with a leap of 6'6". That's not to say it's his personal best. But to say the guy can't jump is absolutely ridiculous considering he was a HIGH JUMP CHAMPION. DRob is among the most athletic players ever, no doubt, but Wilt was off the charts. Wilt was over 300 lbs for a good portion of his career but that didn't hurt him one bit.



How do you equate me saying he didn't have a 50 foot vertical to saying he couldn't jump?

David had something like a 32-36 inch vertical. To pretend Wilt could out jump him by at least 14 inches is crazy talk especially if you look at video evidence. You can cite whatever high school records you want, but the truth is in the video and David is clearly the superior athlete.

[big daddy russ]

...Wilt was over 300 lbs for a good portion of his career but that didn't hurt him one bit....

Wilt never touched 300.

Here's Wilt at his biggest...

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1972/0515_large.jpg

He was listed at 275, but stayed in shape his entire career. Never had a gut, not even in his 40's, long after his playing days.


Shaq, who's the same height as Wilt, played at 325 last year with the Suns.

http://theassociation.blogs.com/the_association/images/2008/03/03/capt91b4477615884068950c2052e3f54c2.jpg

Wilt was never even close to that big. Shaq has a much wider body, much broader shoulders. Wilt was always yoked, even though you had to look to be able to tell, but I'd give him 275 and not a pound more.

[Nathan Explosion]

How do you equate me saying he didn't have a 50 foot vertical to saying he couldn't jump?

David had something like a 32-36 inch vertical. To pretend Wilt could out jump him by at least 14 inches is crazy talk especially if you look at video evidence. You can cite whatever high school records you want, but the truth is in the video and David is clearly the superior athlete.

There's this.


I guarantee he wouldn't need to float up those weak no look, quick flip finger rolls around the post. Nor would all his dunks be of such low elevation...

And the Big 8 isn't a high school division, but rather a major college conference (that merged with the SWC to form the Big 12). Again, showing your ignorance there.

And as for the 300 lbs remark that I made, there's this from his NBA.com bio:


Chamberlain stood 7-1 and was listed at 275 pounds, though he filled out and added more muscle as his career progressed and eventually played at over 300 pounds.

[polandprzem]

It's not weak to qualify eras. It's what it is.

You put Usain Bolt in the 1940s, he's not running a 9.58 100 meters. You put Barry Bonds in the 1960s, he doesn't hit 73 HRs in a season.

You have to take into consideration the time/era and what advantages athletes in each era have. Technology in nutrition, conditioning, and weight lifting absolutely should play a factor in this analysis. Would David Robinson have those arms if he didn't lift weights?

That's why I qualified my comments by saying "natural" athletic ability.

You talking about "ifs"; not about the most athletic Center of all time

[Chieflion]

Those weak no look, quick flip finger rolls were because the media was criticising Wilt for being a power player and he changed his style to shut the people up.

Wilt also lead the league with 8 assists a game in his era where assists were difficult to get because no dribbling was allowed before the shot for the assist just to shut the media up and also to play just as the coach told him to.

[anonoftheinternets]

drob easily ... i mean dwight is athletic when jumping, but drob could run the floor and finish.

[JamStone]

You talking about "ifs"; not about the most athletic Center of all time

No, I'm qualifying eras.

David Robinson having the arms he did with the definition they had is a product of weight lifting, something Wilt Chamberlain didn't do. Again, that's why I qualified my comments talking about who was more "naturally" athletic.

When people talk about the greatest homerun hitters of all time, it should be a no-brainer that it's Barry Bonds. But, many if not most people qualify his numbers because of advantages he had, and often times Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth are still considered greater.

David Robinson didn't cheat or do anything wrong, but he had certain technological advantages. That's just fact. That's why you take that into consideration. If David Robinson was born in the 1940s, would he have had the same physique? No. And, that's why you can't criticize Wilt for not having as good a physique as Robinson.

[ShoogarBear]

1. LOL at people who say "look at the video, Wilt wasn't that athletic".

Looking at the video, Jim Thorpe wasn't that athletic either.

2. Robinson's major advantage in this discussion is that he was a trained gymnast, which everyone will agrees is something that requires advanced athletic skills, and is especially rare in a seven-footer. It's also one sport in which Wilt doesn't have proven ability. However, Robinson doesn't appear to have any noteworthy accomplishments in competitive gymnastics, while Wilt does in track and field. Therefore it seems safe to say that Robinson wasn't as good a gymnast as Wilt was a track athlete. The big unknown, and probably the thing that would have best settled the question, is what would have happened if DRob had gone out for track.

3. I agree with those who say you have to normalize for the era. DRob had modern advantages in terms of nutrition, training, and equipment. You can't just look at how they were cut.

[lurker23]

The answer is pretty simple, and has been stated several times in this thread.

For the sake of pure athleticism:

Wilt > Robinson > Howard

Wilt was a freak, a once in a century type of athlete. I won't bother to go into to much detail, as it's been rehashed a lot in this thread, but Wilt is simply one of those athletes who you think can't impress you any more...and then you learn even more about him and are impressed all over again.

[wildbill2u]

Since Shoogar is the only one that's actually seen Wilt play I give his opinion some weight...but he's not exactly known for his staunch past defenses of the Admiral.

All I know is that the Admiral is probably the best athlete I've seen in my lifetime, in any sport, definitely in basketball, 7 footer or not.

I watched Chamberlin for his whole career and was in the East going to NBA games and watching them on TV from 1957 on. I can't even begin to tell you how great he was in our NBA.

High school:he high jumped (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_jump) 6 feet, 6 inches, ran the 440 yards in 49.0 seconds and the 880 yards in 1:58.3, put the shot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_put) 53 feet, 4 inches, and broad jumped (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_jump) 22 feet.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain#cite_note-donpierce-9). (Any of these times or marks would have put him in the Texas High School State track meet in the Fifties)

College: He ran the 100-yard dash in 10.9 seconds, threw the shotput 56 feet, triple jumped (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_jump) more than 50 feet, and won the high jump in the Big Eight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Eight_Conference) track and field championships three straight years

Looking at the athletes of the day In the 1956 Olympics, Bobby Morrow set a record in 100 meters at 10.62. Career Personal Bests: 100 – 10.2 (1956); 200 – 20.75 (1956); 400 – 47.7y (1959).

Could he have done the handstand trick? I guarantee you if he was challenged he would have gone down the floor --and then come back on his hands just to prove something.

Remember that DROB, as great as he was, broke down physically early. Chamberlin NEVER did. He was playing professional volleyball in his 40s.

I've always thought the guy was an alien in disguise.

[Fred Silva]

Hakeem and young Shaq are above Dwight Howard as of this moment. Dwight still does not have a respectable post move. That weak baby running hook is laughable when you compare it to the Dream's shake or any of Shaq's dominant moves when he was young, light, and the most incredible athlete we have ever seen. Robinson before the injury was a force to be sure. The top three most athletic centers are Shaq, Hakeem, and David, in no particular order. Dwight is not in the conversation until he develops some signature post moves.

[whottt]

1. LOL at people who say "look at the video, Wilt wasn't that athletic".

Looking at the video, Jim Thorpe wasn't that athletic either.

Wilt doesn't look as fast as Drob. Not even close. Not just based on his own movments, but relative to those around him as well.




2. Robinson's major advantage in this discussion is that he was a trained gymnast, which everyone will agrees is something that requires advanced athletic skills, and is especially rare in a seven-footer. It's also one sport in which Wilt doesn't have proven ability. However, Robinson doesn't appear to have any noteworthy accomplishments in competitive gymnastics, while Wilt does in track and field. Therefore it seems safe to say that Robinson wasn't as good a gymnast as Wilt was a track athlete. The big unknown, and probably the thing that would have best settled the question, is what would have happened if DRob had gone out for track.


That's just it though, there's no indication David Robinson ever tried out for any sort of athletic competition if he wasn't recruited to do so.

In fact the only competition it seems David ever sought out was the chess team.

I don't even think David ever acted on qualifying for MENSA on his SAT. I've never heard of him being affiliated with them.

He doesn't have any gymnastic achievements because I don't believe he was ever actually on the Naval Gymnastic Team, only that he qualified for it, not to mention graded out as the best gymnast in his entire class.

He was also the best basketball player of his class, yet if he hadn't played he would have no acomplishments in it.


I mean David had no basketball achievements, until he actually started playing basketball, then holy shit did he do some freakish things. In an era when there was an abundance of freak bigmen,.

And I'd argue that grading out as the best Naval Acdemy Gymnast as a 6'7 man is just as impressive as being 7 foot and winning conference sprint and jump competitions at the dawn of the integrated era.










3. I agree with those who say you have to normalize for the era. DRob had modern advantages in terms of nutrition, training, and equipment. You can't just look at how they were cut.

Can you give me any sort of indication David Robinson ever availed himself of those advatages?

Plus, weights existed in the fifties and sixties.

Wilt most certainly could have lifted weights had he wanted...he just didn't want to, there's no indication David wanted to either, in fact the indication is that he probably was less interested in doing that sort of thing than Wilt.

Everything I've heard about David leads me to believe he was the anti-gym rat. I remember Larry Brown getting pissed off at him because he was spending all his time on the internet when he was young man instead of improving his game(and this was when the internet barely existed).




And David doesn't have bodybuilders arms, his arms are not particularly massive, nor is there anything to incidate he did anything special to make them look that way...outside of doing stuff like walking the lenghts of basketball courts on his hands(which you aren't going to do with noodle arms).



And finally, the company you keep...the only other pro athlete I've heard that could do something similar to walking the length of basketball courts on his hands, was Walter Payton...lots of pro athletes had conference track and field accomplishments, Alexander Wright for instance, and he wasn't anything close to the greatest athlete of his era.

[JamStone]

And David doesn't have bodybuilders arms, his arms are not particularly massive, nor is there anything to incidate he did anything special to make them look that way...outside of doing stuff like walking the lenghts of basketball courts on his hands(which you aren't going to do with noodle arms).

Lol what?!?!?!?!

Wow.

[whottt]

Remember that DROB, as great as he was, broke down physically early. Chamberlin NEVER did. He was playing professional volleyball in his 40s.


I'm pretty sure knee injuries were what forced Wilt to give up his NBA career, at a younger age than Drob retired. And volleyball? Wasn't Greg Ostertag a volleyball player too?

[whottt]

Lol what?!?!?!?!

Wow.

His arms are extremely cut, not extremely massive.

You are assuming he spent time lifting weights building up his arms...I haven't seen any proof he did. I'm not saying he didn't...but you are definitely assuming he did.

Gymnasts don't automatically build up their arms by lifting weights, they don't have too...again I'm not saying they don't, but chinups and rings and pommel horse and hand stands will give you a good developed set of arms. And IMO, much stronger arms than lifting weights will give you as well.

Next body builder I see do a human flag will be the first.

[Chieflion]

I'm pretty sure knee injuries were what forced Wilt to give up his NBA career, at a younger age than Drob retired. And volleyball? Wasn't Greg Ostertag a volleyball player too?
It wasn't. It was Chamberlain trying to go to the ABA and the Lakers sued him for it.

[JamStone]

You're out of your mind if you claim David Robinson's arms weren't extremely massive. They were absolutely defined/cut, but they were also huge. If they weren't extremely massive and they were just really cut, can we assume that Wilt was stronger in the upper body than David Robinson? You're digging yourself a hole by suggesting David Robinson did not have extremely massive arms. He absolutely did.

And, why would you talk about how gymnasts not building up there arms by lifting weights when you just specifically stated that David Robinson wasn't necessarily a gymnast, but merely "qualified" for the Naval gymnast team? You're counter-arguing your own arguments.

David Robinson lifted weights. I don't think that's news to anyone.

There may have been weights around during Wilt's time, but pro basketball players didn't lift weights back then. Now, pretty much every pro basketball player lifts weights. Again, it's something you have to consider, the era, the workout regimen of the time. For basketball players, it didn't involve lifting weights.

[whottt]

You're out of your mind if you claim David Robinson's arms weren't extremely massive.

His arms aren't extremely massive all things considered.



They were absolutely defined/cut, but they were also huge. If they weren't extremely massive and they were just really cut, can we assume that Wilt was stronger in the upper body than David Robinson?

There's plenty of room to assume Wilt was strong on the upperbody, the dude was a shotputter. They don't ask guys with weak upperbodies to do shotput.

Never said he wasn't....however the Admiral could walk the lenght of a basketball cout on his hands, that takes insane strength, and just using your arms to balance yourself will cut them to ribbons.



You're digging yourself a hole by suggesting David Robinson did not have extremely massive arms. He absolutely did.

I'm really not...because the handstand argument is a powerful one. And David look stronger in his upperbody, and Wilt, especially as he got older appears to have the stronger trunk.





And, why would you talk about how gymnasts not building up there arms by lifting weights when you just specifically stated that David Robinson wasn't necessarily a gymnast, but merely "qualified" for the Naval gymnast team? You're counter-arguing your own arguments.

Because he obviously could do gymnastic feats. Like walking the length of a freakin' basketball court on his hands.




David Robinson lifted weights. I don't think that's news to anyone.

You are just assuming that....you're also assuming that's why his arms look so good.




There may have been weights around during Wilt's time, but pro basketball players didn't lift weights back then. Now, pretty much every pro basketball player lifts weights. Again, it's something you have to consider, the era, the workout regimen of the time. For basketball players, it didn't involve lifting weights.

Robinson still looks stonger to me, naturally stronger. Wilt does look meaner though...then again everybody looks meaner than David.

[whottt]

Shoogar, you and Jam feel free to meet up with me, we can jump, we can run, try to dunk, see who can throw a shotput the furthest..

I guarantee you we will all come closer to Wilt in those areas than we will to David in walking the length of a basketball court on our hands.

Thanks for playing. :smokin

[whottt]

It wasn't. It was Chamberlain trying to go to the ABA and the Lakers sued him for it.



Yeah, that explains his scoring average dropping by about 25ppg.

[JamStone]

I would really like to know if anyone on earth shares the opinion that David Robinson didn't really have extremely massive arms. I think you'd be in an extreme minority who share that belief.

There are plenty of pro athletes that have the strength to walk on their hands the length of the basketball court but don't have the balance. It's a testament as much to his sense of balance as it does his upper body strength. Of course it requires strong arms, but making some sort of suggestion that he's unique in that regard for his strength is misplaced, in my opinion. He's unique in that regard because of his sense of balance. You and I would probably agree that Shaq in his earlier NBA days (when he was thinner) was still probably about as strong in the upper body as David Robinson if not perhaps stronger. If he couldn't walk the length of the court on his hands, it wouldn't be for lack of strength, but lack of balance.

Being able to do gymnastic feats does not mean David trained as a gymnast trained. That's an assumption on your part.

I assume David Robinson lifted weights. I'm pretty sure someone could find evidence for it, an interview or something where he talks about lifting. But, I'm pretty sure it's a safe assumption. I'll ask you this now. Are you suggesting David Robinson did not lift weights? Is that what you're implying?

[JamStone]

Shoogar, you and Jam feel free to meet up with me, we can jump, we can run, try to dunk, see who can throw a shotput the furthest..

I guarantee you we will all come closer to Wilt in those areas than we will to David in walking the length of a basketball court on our hands.

Thanks for playing. :smokin

I 12 year old girl gymnast has a better chance of walking the length of a basketball court on her hands than an NFL lineman.

12 year old gymnasts must be stronger than NFL lineman.

[whottt]

I 12 year old girl gymnast has a better chance of walking the length of a basketball court on her hands than an NFL lineman.

12 year old gymnasts must be stronger than NFL lineman.

A 12 year old girl who is the same size as an NFL lineman won't be able to walk further.

Drob and Wilt are pretty much the same size. I've met Shoogar, I'm not really sure how big he is but we're both definitely bigger than 12 year old girls and smaller than NFL lineman. And that 12 year old girl might be a better athlete than that lineman anyway, if she can walk the lenght of a court on her hands I'm inclined to say she would be. She can probably do 30 things he can't do, he can probably do 2 or 3 that she can't.

And finally, I'd argue that that 12 year old girl gymnast can walk futher on her hands than a lineman anyway, women don't generally have much upperbody strength at all, it's usually in their legs, especially gymnasts.

[Chieflion]

Yeah, that explains his scoring average dropping by about 25ppg.
You also forgot to mention that he had set the record for FG% that year of 72.7% from the field, a record yet to be broken and still was the top rebounder of the league that year. He left the NBA after the 1972-1973 season because he wanted to join the San Diego Conquistadors of the ABA as player-coach.

[whottt]

I would really like to know if anyone on earth shares the opinion that David Robinson didn't really have extremely massive arms. I think you'd be in an extreme minority who share that belief.

There are plenty of pro athletes that have the strength to walk on their hands the length of the basketball court but don't have the balance. It's a testament as much to his sense of balance as it does his upper body strength. Of course it requires strong arms, but making some sort of suggestion that he's unique in that regard for his strength is misplaced, in my opinion. He's unique in that regard because of his sense of balance. You and I would probably agree that Shaq in his earlier NBA days (when he was thinner) was still probably about as strong in the upper body as David Robinson if not perhaps stronger. If he couldn't walk the length of the court on his hands, it wouldn't be for lack of strength, but lack of balance.

Being able to do gymnastic feats does not mean David trained as a gymnast trained. That's an assumption on your part.

I assume David Robinson lifted weights. I'm pretty sure someone could find evidence for it, an interview or something where he talks about lifting. But, I'm pretty sure it's a safe assumption. I'll ask you this now. Are you suggesting David Robinson did not lift weights? Is that what you're implying?

Uh, balance is definitely a part of atheleticism.

If you just want to break this down to running, jumping and lifting, we get to look at all the available visual evidence, it's going to be fairly easy to conclude the Admiral as Wilt's equal or better in 2 of the 3 categories(upperbody, and speed).

[JamStone]

Wilt in his prime played somewhere around 285-300 lbs. David Robinson in his prime played around 250-260 lbs. There's enough of a difference to give good reason to believe Wilt's mass would give him an advantage in strength.

Again, my point about walking on hands remains the same, it's just as much about balance as it is about strength. There are people, athletes, who have the upper body strength and arm strength to walk on their hands the length of the court but cannot do it because of a balance issue, not a strength issue. You are applying his ability to walk on his hands as an argument to solely explain his strength. I still think it's misplaced if you use it only to suggest strength.

This also goes back to what I was talking about before about "natural" athletic ability. Walking on your hands isn't something people just do, wake up one morning, and just start walking on their hands. People practice it before being adept at doing it. You give an athlete enough time to practice walking on their hands, most good athletes would be able to do it. There is absolutely a measure of strength in walking on your hands. But, it's also about practice and balance.

[JamStone]

Uh, balance is definitely a part of atheleticism.

If you just want to break this down to running, jumping and lifting, we get to look at all the available visual evidene, it's going to be fairly easy to conclude the Admiral as Wilt's equal or better in 2 of the 3 categories(upperbody, and speed).

Completely agree that balance is part of athleticism. You were using his ability to walk on his hands to basically explain how strong he was. We cannot conclude what you just contended with certainty, particularly the upperbody strength category. That would be a guess. I wouldn't say with certainty at all that David Robinson was "as" strong or "stronger" than Wilt in the upper body. I mean, David Robinson didn't even have extremely massive arms after all.

[whottt]

Wilt in his prime played somewhere around 285-300 lbs. David Robinson in his prime played around 250-260 lbs. There's enough of a difference to give good reason to believe Wilt's mass would give him an advantage in strength.

Absolutely not conclusive at all....


Again, my point about walking on hands remains the same, it's just as much about balance as it is about strength. There are people, athletes, who have the upper body strength and arm strength to walk on their hands the length of the court but cannot do it because of a balance issue, not a strength issue. You are applying his ability to walk on his hands as an argument to solely explain his strength. I still think it's misplaced if you use it only to suggest strength.

This also goes back to what I was talking about before about "natural" athletic ability. Walking on your hands isn't something people just do, wake up one morning, and just start walking on their hands. People practice it before being adept at doing it. You give an athlete enough time to practice walking on their hands, most good athletes would be able to do it. There is absolutely a measure of strength in walking on your hands. But, it's also about practice and balance.

I've known people that could walk on their hands after trying it a couple of times. I'm not one of them, and neither are you either based on your coments and I bet most people in this thread aren't either, that doesn't mean it's not a feat of athleticism. Gymnastics takes all around athletecism...

As evidenced by the fact that David Robinson is unquestionbly a fantastic athlete, and natural gymnast.

[JamStone]

Absolutely not conclusive at all....

As conclusive as suggesting you can look at old videos and each of their respective physiques and simply conclude Robinson is as strong or stronger than Wilt.




I've known people that could walk on their hands after trying it a couple of times. I'm not one of them, and neither are you either based on your coments and I bet most people in this thread aren't either, that doesn't mean it's not a feat of athletecism.

Never said or even suggested it wasn't a feat of athleticism. What I am suggesting is that if someone can walk on their hands the length of the basketball court, it doesn't necessarily mean that person is stronger than a person who cannot. And, it doesn't mean that person is more athletic than a person who cannot.

[whottt]

As conclusive as suggesting you can look at videos and conclude Robinson is as strong or stronger than Wilt.





Never said or even suggested it wasn't a feat of athleticism. What I am suggesting is that if someone can walk on their hands the length of the basketball court, it doesn't necessarily mean that person is stronger than a person who cannot. And, it doesn't mean that person is more athletic than a person who cannot.


I see what you are saying...

But if you give me a bunch of guys within 30lbs of each other that are the same height I guarantee you the ones that can walk the length of a basketball court on their hands more often than not will be stronger than the others that can't.


Advantage David.

[whottt]

Wilt in his prime played somewhere around 285-300 lbs. David Robinson in his prime played around 250-260 lbs. There's enough of a difference to give good reason to believe Wilt's mass would give him an advantage in strength.


Since pretty much the consensus is that Wilt didn't lift weights, there's no way you can prove he's stronger, he could just be fatter. Without weightlifting that is the obvious conclusion, especially as he gained that weight later in his career.

[whottt]

As conclusive as suggesting you can look at old videos


Video is more conclusive than folktales.

[whottt]

You also forgot to mention that he had set the record for FG% that year of 72.7% from the field, a record yet to be broken and still was the top rebounder of the league that year. He left the NBA after the 1972-1973 season because he wanted to join the San Diego Conquistadors of the ABA as player-coach.Depends on who you listen to...some said Wilt's knees were gone(including one of his coaches), Wilt never admitted it, but he certainly didn't play much basketball after that.

In any case, David playd the same number of years and to an older age, and his scoring decline wasn't automatically due to breaking down either, but also Mr. Duncan joining the Spurs.

[Cry Havoc]

And finally, I'd argue that that 12 year old girl gymnast can walk futher on her hands than a lineman anyway, women don't generally have much upperbody strength at all, it's usually in their legs, especially gymnasts.

You are out of your MIND.

Gymnasts both male and female are incredibly strong. They have an absolutely insane amount of core strength and extremely well-developed upper bodies as well as their legs. I have a friend who is just a level 10 gymnast (on the fringe of elite), isn't even considered a "power" gymnast, and her arms are incredibly defined and look very strong.

Suggesting that a gymnast "doesn't have much strength" in ANY part of their body shows a complete lack of knowledge about gymnastics as a whole.

[whottt]

You are out of your MIND.

Gymnasts both male and female are incredibly strong. They have an absolutely insane amount of core strength and extremely well-developed upper bodies as well as their legs. I have a friend who is just a level 10 gymnast (on the fringe of elite), isn't even considered a "power" gymnast, and her arms are incredibly defined and look very strong.

Suggesting that a gymnast "doesn't have much strength" in ANY part of their body shows a complete lack of knowledge about gymnastics as a whole.

I said women generally don't have much upperbody strength, their strength is usually concentrated in their legs, espcially gymnasts.

I can see why you took it the way you did, but I didn't really say what you think I did.


Let me put it another way..

Female gymnasts definitely have more upperbody strength than the typical woman, as evidenced by the handstands they can do on the balance beam among other things, but they still don't have much upperbody strength compared to a typical man, and they are absolutely beyond all doubt stronger in their legs than their upperbody.

[elbamba]

Half of his blocks were goal tending in the wilt video.

[newacc]

There's this.



And the Big 8 isn't a high school division, but rather a major college conference (that merged with the SWC to form the Big 12). Again, showing your ignorance there.

And as for the 300 lbs remark that I made, there's this from his NBA.com bio:

I know the Big 8 wasn't a high school division. I said high school remembering one of whott's posts where he referenced high school.

And just because you don't have a verticle leap of 50 doesn't mean you can't jump. What I am saying is if you look at the video evidence, Wilt doesn't elevate as high or effortlessly as David. 50 inches my ass. Vince Carter who was the best dunker the NBA has ever seen couldn't even get up 50 inches on a vertical jump.

Wilt is big on himself and I'm sure he had no problems enhancing his reputation in any way, shape, or form.

As far as strength, I'm not so sure David was the stronger of the two. Wilt looked like he had a stronger torso/legs and as noted was notably heavier than David. I don't think David's arms are massive either. They were cut and definitely muscular, but I wouldn't classify them as massive.

[newacc]

All I know is that Wilt wouldn't have been put to sleep by Karl Malone.

You would have. Wilt would have. And probably just about anyone else. Getting knocked unconscious isn't about being a tough guy. You get caught with an elbow on the wrong place on your head and you're going down.

[JamStone]

Video is more conclusive than folktales.

Since when was a person's weight a folktale?

[Cry Havoc]

I said women generally don't have much upperbody strength, their strength is usually concentrated in their legs, espcially gymnasts.

I can see why you took it the way you did, but I didn't really say what you think I did.


Let me put it another way..

Female gymnasts definitely have more upperbody strength than the typical woman, as evidenced by the handstands they can do on the balance beam among other things, but they still don't have much upperbody strength compared to a typical man, and they are absolutely beyond all doubt stronger in their legs than their upperbody.

Please try to do an uneven bar routine and then say how weak in the upper body female gymnasts are. If guys are SO much stronger it shouldn't be a problem for them, and most men would not even be able to get themselves to do a full rotation on the bar. I'm willing to bet an average female level 10 gymnast could do more pull-ups than 95% of men.

How many people do you know are stronger in their upper body than their legs, anyway? I'm about 165 pounds and I bench 200, but I leg press 650, because legs are obviously bigger muscles.

Saying "women are weak to men" is kind of a ridiculous argument to make, because a lot of measured strength is focused in raw weight. I'm sure the average 5'11" 280 pound man who's extremely obese can probably bench press more than me, but to say a 280 pound man can outbench me is a silly comparison to make in the first place. Sure, he's stronger, but that added strength is pointless because it's rooted in the mass of his weight.

[whottt]

Saying "women are weak to men" is kind of a ridiculous argument to make, because a lot of measured strength is focused in raw weight.

Every shred of medical or scientific evidence will back that statement, every weightlifting record will confirm it...the entire recorded history of homo-sapiens dating back 200,000+ years in which there is not a single example in which women were the primary hunters in any known organized society, reinforces it...not to mention those things called balls that most men have that produce the hormone the body uses to build muscle at about 50 times the level it is produced in women.

It's fact their muscle lies differently, it's a fact their blood flows differently. And that blood flow is definitely a factor in how long they could do a handstand and walk on it.



Edit: I'm not interested in continuing this argument...I hope it gets you laid.

[whottt]

Since when was a person's weight a folktale?




As conclusive as suggesting you can look at old videos and each of their respective physiques and simply conclude Robinson is as strong or stronger than Wilt.



There's nothing in that statement about weight, and the not conclusive statement was made in response to you saying because Wilt weighs more his mass gave him more strength.


I don't see anyone arguing abut someone's weight. Wilt weighed more. There's no evidence he was stronger than Drob...the only evidence suggests Drob was probably stronger.


And btw, I don't know if you looked into this or not, but again I'll repeat that gymnasts hardly ever lift weights, hardly ever, and I'm willing to bet guys that grade out as the best gymnasts in their class tend to do gymnasts workouts more than weight training. Chinups, handstands, inverted pushups...that sort of thing. Those(gymnast exercises) may not have been in style in Wilt's era...and they weren't really in style in David's either.

[polandprzem]

First of all :lol @ this thread :tu

Secondly

No, I'm qualifying eras.

David Robinson having the arms he did with the definition they had is a product of weight lifting, something Wilt Chamberlain didn't do. Again, that's why I qualified my comments talking about who was more "naturally" athletic.

When people talk about the greatest homerun hitters of all time, it should be a no-brainer that it's Barry Bonds. But, many if not most people qualify his numbers because of advantages he had, and often times Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth are still considered greater.

David Robinson didn't cheat or do anything wrong, but he had certain technological advantages. That's just fact. That's why you take that into consideration. If David Robinson was born in the 1940s, would he have had the same physique? No. And, that's why you can't criticize Wilt for not having as good a physique as Robinson.
Once again - we are talking about the most athletic center of all time, not the most gifted athlete with potential to be the best.

Yiu are talking about potentials of Wilt and achivenemnts of Dave and if you want to look at it this way. Let's wait 20 more years and then we can transfer Wilt and Drob to 2040 and do all the sience with nutrition and posibilities to be the greatest athlete.
Wilt did not have same envoirnemnt to bulit himself up like he would this days- well that's as obvious as one day we will die.

btw. Wilt was lifting weights
More - Bob Pettit was lifting weights

and well also we can put Mikan into a consideration of being close with Wilt with athletic posibilieties. He was wide, fast and strong. Give him the tools to progress.

[polandprzem]

Please try to do an uneven bar routine and then say how weak in the upper body female gymnasts are. If guys are SO much stronger it shouldn't be a problem for them, and most men would not even be able to get themselves to do a full rotation on the bar. I'm willing to bet an average female level 10 gymnast could do more pull-ups than 95% of men.

How many people do you know are stronger in their upper body than their legs, anyway? I'm about 165 pounds and I bench 200, but I leg press 650, because legs are obviously bigger muscles.

Saying "women are weak to men" is kind of a ridiculous argument to make, because a lot of measured strength is focused in raw weight. I'm sure the average 5'11" 280 pound man who's extremely obese can probably bench press more than me, but to say a 280 pound man can outbench me is a silly comparison to make in the first place. Sure, he's stronger, but that added strength is pointless because it's rooted in the mass of his weight.

btw to this

Strenght is mostly genetics - it's about what kind of muscle cells you have in you body.

and having more weight doesnt give you more strenght

[JamStone]

Then what are you implying are folktales? Because all I was saying is that just merely comparing physiques to determine strength is about as conclusive as comparing weight and determining the same. What are you suggesting is a folktale?

This is the line of discussion that got to the point of you calling something "folktales." What is a folktale?


Wilt in his prime played somewhere around 285-300 lbs. David Robinson in his prime played around 250-260 lbs. There's enough of a difference to give good reason to believe Wilt's mass would give him an advantage in strength.


Absolutely not conclusive at all....


As conclusive as suggesting you can look at old videos and each of their respective physiques and simply conclude Robinson is as strong or stronger than Wilt.


Video is more conclusive than folktales.

[JamStone]

First of all :lol @ this thread :tu

Secondly

Once again - we are talking about the most athletic center of all time, not the most gifted athlete with potential to be the best.

Yiu are talking about potentials of Wilt and achivenemnts of Dave and if you want to look at it this way. Let's wait 20 more years and then we can transfer Wilt and Drob to 2040 and do all the sience with nutrition and posibilities to be the greatest athlete.
Wilt did not have same envoirnemnt to bulit himself up like he would this days- well that's as obvious as one day we will die.

btw. Wilt was lifting weights
More - Bob Pettit was lifting weights

and well also we can put Mikan into a consideration of being close with Wilt with athletic posibilieties. He was wide, fast and strong. Give him the tools to progress.

I'm not talking about "potentials" at all. I'm qualifying eras with specifically the claim that you can look at David Robinson's physique and say he was stronger. I didn't accept or acquiesce to the notion that David Robinson was stronger. I qualified the look of his physique.

And, what achievements of David Robinson are we talking about? Him walking the length of the court on his hands? First of all, that is as much a "folktale" as Wilt Chamberlain having a 50 inch vertical.

Secondly, if you want to talk about athletic achievements, Wilt has his documented in track in field. The fact that he played professional volleyball is also documented. With David Robinson, the arguments are based on how his physique looks like and whottt's story that he walked on his hands.

No, we're not comparing Robinson's achievements versus Wilt's potential. If anything, it's completely the other way around.


Qualifying eras happens all the time. It happens in the Olympics, for example swimming, where there are "faster" swimsuits and every swimmer now shaves their entire body, wears a swim cap or goes bald. It's a scientific fast that allows you to swim faster. It has to be qualified. It happens with the home run in baseball with the "steroid era." When you compare athletes from different eras, you qualify the eras.

And, again, my qualifying the eras is specific to the argument that you can compare the physiques of David Robinson and Wilt Chamberlain and conclude that David was stronger simply because of his physique.

[polandprzem]

JS you missed the point again

And again with that Capt. obvious talk ...

[JamStone]

You misrepresented what I was saying.

Again, explain how we are talking about David Robinson's achievements versus Wilt's potential?

What are these David Robinson's achievements?

And, what suggests we're only talking about Wilt's potential?

Explain that to me.

[polandprzem]

JS you missed the point again

And again with that Capt. obvious talk ...


You misrepresented what I was saying.

Again, explain how we are talking about David Robinson's achievements versus Wilt's potential?

What are these David Robinson's achievements?

And, what suggests we're only talking about Wilt's potential?

Explain that to me.

Simply you are saying hat DRob had everything in his times to develop that phisic and Wilt was unable to have such tools (science, nutrition, snickers), that's why he is potentialy better athlete.

[JamStone]

As it pertains to comparing physiques, David had certain advantages, yes. My point has been that you cannot look at David Robinson's physique compared to Wilt and automatically assume David was stronger in the upper body.

But, that's not the reason I said Wilt was the better athlete, potentially or otherwise. The other things that have already been mentioned in this thread about Wilt's track times, shot put throws, high jump ability, playing professional volleyball, his vertical jump (exaggerated or not) are what give me reason to believe that Wilt was a once in a lifetime athlete unmatched in the history of the NBA.

The talk of qualifying eras is to counter a point like looking at physiques to determine strength or if each had 100 meter sprint times, you could qualify those numbers.

So, at least you can now agree and admit that you misrepresented what I was saying.


And, once again I ask, what achievements of David Robinson have you been talking about? Please answer that for me.

[polandprzem]

As it pertains to comparing physiques, David had certain advantages, yes. My point has been that you cannot look at David Robinson's physique compared to Wilt and automatically assume David was stronger in the upper body.

But, that's not the reason I said Wilt was the better athlete, potentially or otherwise. The other things that have already been mentioned in this thread about Wilt's track times, shot put throws, high jump ability, playing professional volleyball, his vertical jump (exaggerated or not) are what give me reason to believe that Wilt was a once in a lifetime athlete unmatched in the history of the NBA.

The talk of qualifying eras is to counter a point like looking at physiques to determine strength or if each had 100 meter sprint times, you could qualify those numbers.

So, at least you can now agree and admit that you misrepresented what I was saying.


And, once again I ask, what achievements of David Robinson have you been talking about? Please answer that for me.
I never assumed that DRob was stronger in an upperbody

As for achievements I ment the things Dave was capable of doing on the court.
He was capable of doing much more then Wilt.
So you was talking about potential that Wilt had and would heve been superior to Daves in the same 90s era

[JamStone]

I never assumed that DRob was stronger in an upperbody

As for achievements I ment the things Dave was capable of doing on the court.
He was capable of doing much more then Wilt.
So you was talking about potential that Wilt had and would heve been superior to Daves in the same 90s era

What could David do on the court that Wilt couldn't other than shoot jumpshots/free throws at a higher rate, which is more about skill than athleticism anyway. There's no concrete evidence that David Robinson was faster than Wilt. Wilt out-ran guards just the way David out-ran guards. Wilt even was a collegiate level sprinter.

And, no, I wasn't talking about potential with Wilt. Again, you mischaracterize what I said. I'm only qualifying eras, and specifically so as it relates to comparing physiques.

But, yes, if Wilt played in the same 1990s era, I believe we would have all seen that he was the superior athlete. That's my opinion. You're more than free to believe otherwise.

[Obstructed_View]

I've missed a number of pages in this thread, but I just want to make sure some of you understand one thing about Wilt. As great as he actually was, it cannot compare to how great he'll tell you he was. He was an all time great player, but he was also full of himself to the point where he didn't mind lying to anyone with a microphone. He's done a lot of amazing things, but it's probably wise to only go by the abilities and accomplishments that are properly documented.

[howbouthemspurs]

I dont know about all of you guys but I still think David Robinson was the most athletic Center of all time.. Could be one of the most athletic NBA player of all time too

[polandprzem]

What could David do on the court that Wilt couldn't other than shoot jumpshots/free throws at a higher rate, which is more about skill than athleticism anyway. There's no concrete evidence that David Robinson was faster than Wilt. Wilt out-ran guards just the way David out-ran guards. Wilt even was a collegiate level sprinter.

And, no, I wasn't talking about potential with Wilt. Again, you mischaracterize what I said. I'm only qualifying eras, and specifically so as it relates to comparing physiques.

But, yes, if Wilt played in the same 1990s era, I believe we would have all seen that he was the superior athlete. That's my opinion. You're more than free to believe otherwise.

Catch an alleyup and finish it with vengance with a defender under him.
And there are more athletic guys in 90 then there were in 60s IMO (your is different but that's ok- you can claim that there are more athletic guys in 60s all you want) :)


I'm only qualifying eras
Strange mr obvoius :rolleyes

You trying to explain me that technology is going forward?

wow - thanks I guess

To every highlight I saw with Wilt and games I saw. He was not much more athletic then Russell on the court.

[JamStone]

I didn't say there were more athletic guys in the 60s than in the 90s.

And apparently wasn't able to catch alley oops and finish over a defender. Uhhhh ok. Perhaps the distinction is finishing "with a vengeance. LOL, right. Wilt couldn't do that. Are you serious?

And for all your talk about how David could do so mnay more things than Wilt on the court, you come up with one thing... And one thing only. And that one thing is something Wilt could.

Great argument...

[polandprzem]

I didn't say there were more athletic guys in the 60s than in the 90s.

And apparently wasn't able to catch alley oops and finish over a defender. Uhhhh ok. Perhaps the distinction is finishing "with a vengeance. LOL, right. Wilt couldn't do that. Are you serious?

And for all your talk about how David could do so mnay more things than Wilt on the court, you come up with one thing... And one thing only. And that one thing is something Wilt could.

Great argument...

Jammie

1. I just answerd the question what Dave could do that Wilt couldn't (wasn't doing)
2. I just making my opinion on what I can see. And I never saw Wilt running the floor like Dave did, Never saw Wilt as plastic around the rim as Dave was. Never saw Wilt so well coordinated as Dave was.
You can show me the numbers in athletics but it really not translate to the things you do on the floor. At least not as a whole.
3. Please don't start that 60s 90s science again
4. Thanks

[JamStone]

1. Again, with all your talk of what David could do, you chose one thing that the great majority would agree Wilt could also do. That was your best example.
2. You should watch some of the videos of Wilt posted in this thread or go look more up on YouTube. Saying what you did suggests you haven't watched any of the old Wilt videos.
3. I wasn't starting anything about the 60s/90s again. I was correcting your misrepresentation of what I've said. I never said there were better or more athletes in the 60s than in the 90s. You said I did say that. Kindly don't lie about what I've said.
4. You are welcome.

[polandprzem]

1. Again, with all your talk of what David could do, you chose one thing that the great majority would agree Wilt could also do. That was your best example.
2. You should watch some of the videos of Wilt posted in this thread or go look more up on YouTube. Saying what you did suggests you haven't watched any of the old Wilt videos.
3. I wasn't starting anything about the 60s/90s again. I was correcting your misrepresentation of what I've said. I never said there were better or more athletes in the 60s than in the 90s. You said I did say that. Kindly don't lie about what I've said.
4. You are welcome.

ad 1. Could
ad 2. I've seen enough - no match with dave's ones
ad 3. So Dave had better athletes against him and still was able to do this things I never so Wilt was doing?! Wow.
And yup I was saying that you ment 60s are better athletes then 90s. You never said that.


More thngs later, I got to go for now.

[Drachen]

Comparing highlights is stupid because there is more footage of John Wall than Wilt. But the game was not slower paced back then. The 6er averaged around 120 points per game.

The slower pace was a joke, alluding to the slow-mo that his highlight reel was played at.

I am comparing highlights because, well they are just that (supposedly) some footage of the best that a player has to offer.

[JamStone]

I never assumed that DRob was stronger in an upperbody

As for achievements I ment the things Dave was capable of doing on the court.
He was capable of doing much more then Wilt.
So you was talking about potential that Wilt had and would heve been superior to Daves in the same 90s era

"Was capable of doing" as in "could do."

That was your initial point. That's what it means.

Are suggesting Wilt was not capable of catching an alley oop and finishing with a vengeance over a defender? Or are you merely saying that you haven't seen Wilt do that in the videos you've watched of him.

So you like to qualify eras by sayind Dave played with better athletes, but you don't like qualifying eras when it comes to gauging Wilt's athleticism.

And, no, I never said nor do I believe that the 60s had better athletes than the 90s. I don't believe that at all.

The former would be an inaccurate contention. The latter would not be applicable to your point that Wilt wasn't capable of doing this one thing you stated David was capable of.

[Obstructed_View]

He was never too far off. When talking about the 67 76ers he said "we were so good I think he started at 41-3." in reality they started at 40-4. In his first book he said he averaged something like 50 points in high school when he really averaged around 48. Even his 20,000 women claim was not far off when people close to him were asked.

No, the things you mentioned are the things where he wasn't far off. To say that he was "never" far off is to admit that you didn't see many of his interviews.

[whottt]

What could David do on the court that Wilt couldn't other than shoot jumpshots/free throws at a higher rate, which is more about skill than athleticism anyway.


Walk the length of it on his hands....and if you are going to say Wilt could've had done that I'll simiply counter with saying David could have won Big 8 Track and Field events in the mid 1950's, slept with 20k women, and made change of the top of the backboard.

[whottt]

There is enough evidence to conclude Wilt was a better jumper, there's some evidence he might have been faster, but it's not borne out in any video evidence...and there's nothing to prove he was stronger, or more coordinated.


And David's FT shooting had nothing to do with skill...David never worked on his game, especially hit FT shooting.

Wilt was just about the worst FT shooter in history and he took more of them than just about anyone.

He sucked at it...and it is coordination.


And it was a weakness in his game that could be easily exploited...David had no such weaknesses.

David's only weakness was being doubled and tripled team, which is the exact same weakness Wilt had. And it's not really a weakness either....

[wildbill2u]

Interesting that no one has mentioned how soft DROB was. He really didn't create fear in his opponents by taking it to the hoop with authority all that much. Very seldom did he get hyped enough to really slam one down.

He preferred to take soft jumpters from outside a lot of the time, even when the lane was open to such a fast mobile player. I used to cuss him all the time for not causing more fouls from his defender. He should have led the league in foul shots every year.

[whottt]

Interesting that no one has mentioned how soft DROB was. He really didn't create fear in his opponents by taking it to the hoop with authority all that much. Very seldom did he get hyped enough to really slam one down.

He preferred to take soft jumpters from outside a lot of the time, even when the lane was open to such a fast mobile player. I used to cuss him all the time for not causing more fouls from his defender. He should have led the league in foul shots every year.

I guess Tim Duncan is soft then, because he's never lead the NBA in dunks or Free Throw Attempts, both of which David Robinson did, multiple times.


At least David's team never finished in last place and he never missed the playoffs, with him healthy.

The same cannot be said of Wilt.


And they said Wilt was soft too...because he couldn't win a title against teams with multiple HOF'ers when he had shit on his roster.

[whottt]

I think it's enormously ironic that people call David Robinson soft when he played on more Team USA teams than any other player, when he played through the 96 Olympics with a hernia, and his college years were spent going through officer cadet training at the Naval Academy, in addition to basketball practices, as opposed to the man's way of doing it of being a privileged star athlete at a basketball college.


You aren't much of a Spur fan if you call David Robinson soft...and the fact that you feel compelled to say that as he is being inducted in the HOF pretty much brands you as the absolute stupidest, and worst, that the Spurfans have to offer.


While he was playing through a hernia, representing his country and shortening his career in the process, you were probably sitting on your fat fucking ass in a recliner calling him soft.

Pathetic.


He lead the NBA in FTA and Dunks multiple times. And he was one of the elite finishers in those categories pretty much every year of his career. More than Duncan or Hakeem...if that is your measure of softness, you just kicked your own ass if you are Tim Duncan fan.

Instead of acting like you have any kind of statistical proof he was soft(and you do not), nor is there anything in his injury history that bears out that he was, why don't you just admit you don't like David Robinson and leave it at that...

It's what a non-soft "man" would do.

[JamStone]

There is enough evidence to conclude Wilt was a better jumper, there's some evidence he might have been faster, but it's not borne out in any video evidence...and there's nothing to prove he was stronger, or more coordinated.


And David's FT shooting had nothing to do with skill...David never worked on his game, especially hit FT shooting.

Wilt was just about the worst FT shooter in history and he took more of them than just about anyone.

He sucked at it...and it is coordination.


And it was a weakness in his game that could be easily exploited...David had no such weaknesses.

David's only weakness was being doubled and tripled team, which is the exact same weakness Wilt had. And it's not really a weakness either....

So now David Robinson never worked on his game. Apparently he never practiced shooting free throws according to you. Lol. Who's telling folk tales now?

You might be the first person to ever suggest free throw shooting isn't a skill. I can't believe all the athletic ability oozing out of Steve Kerr when he would shoot free throws.

David's weakness when it comes to athleticism was having a weak lower core/base compared to his upper body. That's part of the reason he was never a consistently good back-to-the-basket, low post scorer. He didn't quite have the lower body strength to back down defenders in the low post. It was an exploitable weakness. But it was also somewhat an advantage in that it was partly a reason why he could get up and down the court well for a big man, had better lateral quickness than many big men, and could gymnastic feats like walk on his hands. If he had Shaq's ass, he likely wouldn't be able to walk on his hands, surely not the length of the court.

[Agloco]

He was never too far off. When talking about the 67 76ers he said "we were so good I think he started at 41-3." in reality they started at 40-4. In his first book he said he averaged something like 50 points in high school when he really averaged around 48. Even his 20,000 women claim was not far off when people close to him were asked.

He literally had to change women more than he changed underwear during the course of his lifetime. That's more than one woman per day from age 15 to 63. I'm thinking he counted most women more than once.

"I had 20000 sexual encounters." would be more believable.

[polandprzem]

"Was capable of doing" as in "could do."

That was your initial point. That's what it means.

Are suggesting Wilt was not capable of catching an alley oop and finishing with a vengeance over a defender? Or are you merely saying that you haven't seen Wilt do that in the videos you've watched of him.

So you like to qualify eras by sayind Dave played with better athletes, but you don't like qualifying eras when it comes to gauging Wilt's athleticism.

And, no, I never said nor do I believe that the 60s had better athletes than the 90s. I don't believe that at all.

The former would be an inaccurate contention. The latter would not be applicable to your point that Wilt wasn't capable of doing this one thing you stated David was capable of.

We might be on the same side I don't know.
Once again I will try to put my points in the argument.

Was Wilt able or not with those alleyups we don't know, simply because he was not doing that on the basketball curt during games and mostly because there were basiccly no alleyups then. Alleyup came to play in late 70s if I remember correctly.
Wilt was not doing such things. Not a one highlight with him is impressive. Not even a one play if you ask me.
He might be better athlete as a whole but not better athlete on basketball court.
So what that wilt was running fast at 100yrds as he was unable to use it on the court?
Damn when you can outbenchpress everybody it doesn't mean you can hold off other players down low when he is backing you.

One thing we don't know. How good would Wilt be if he was born 20 or 30 years later? How much dominant he would be in the leauge with those (nowdays) rules and all 'taking care of a player' things (like science, nutrition, snickers, docs ...)

All I know is that I haven't seen anybody having that skillset on the court like David.


For the record also I do not like such converstaions because, there are too many aspects that can be thown and too many people judge those aspects differently, plus you've got other eras other competition and so on and so on. It's like making a list of top10. Never suits you. And there is never a winner.

[ambchang]

So you are saying Wilt not playing at a time when alleyoops weren't done in play is a knock against him?

Almost any NBA center can catch and flush and flush a dunk, Jerome James can do it, doesn't make him particularly athletic. But if you are using that as a gauge, James > Wilt in athleticism, which is just absolutely stupid.

[ambchang]

Interesting that no one has mentioned how soft DROB was. He really didn't create fear in his opponents by taking it to the hoop with authority all that much. Very seldom did he get hyped enough to really slam one down.

He preferred to take soft jumpters from outside a lot of the time, even when the lane was open to such a fast mobile player. I used to cuss him all the time for not causing more fouls from his defender. He should have led the league in foul shots every year.

This post just wreaks of ignorance.

Robinson led the league in dunks.

Robinson led the league in rebounds.

Robinson led the league in FTA.

Robinson led the league in FTM.

You know why he did? Because he played in the paint on offense and defense, getting hacked over and over again.

Before his back was shot, he was either #1 or #2 in FTA and FTM every single year he played a full season. He even finished #4 the year he played only 68 games.

You are also talking about a guy who guarded Shaq one on one in the playoffs with a hernia and a hip pointer. All the while the supposedly toughest player in the game, Shaq, would take chunks of games off with an ingrown toenail.

[polandprzem]

So you are saying Wilt not playing at a time when alleyoops weren't done in play is a knock against him?

Nope

Just saying he was not doing it on the court while playing ball. He had great abilieties to do it but he wasn't doing it. That is my point.


Almost any NBA center can catch and flush and flush a dunk, Jerome James can do it, doesn't make him particularly athletic. But if you are using that as a gauge, James > Wilt in athleticism, which is just absolutely stupid.
Why am I stupid?

[ambchang]

Nope

Just saying he was not doing it on the court while playing ball. He had great abilieties to do it but he wasn't doing it. That is my point.

So him not doing it would lead to what in the argument of comparing the athleticism of Wilt and Robinson?


Why am I stupid?

Did you say Jerome James is more athletic than Wilt?

[polandprzem]

So him not doing it would lead to what in the argument of comparing the athleticism of Wilt and Robinson?
It means that he was not doing the things Dave was doing on the court, athleticly.




Did you say Jerome James is more athletic than Wilt?

Which answer will provide you to say I'm stupid ? :)

[Nathan Explosion]

eBXgvdVvFL0

Also here is a video filmed in the late 80s, where Jerry West, Paul Arizin and Billy Cunningham.

If you still have doubts here is another video.

RdHJOFCbUhg

I know there are not many videos, but I have plenty of books and there are tons of interviews that talk about how athletic Wilt was.

Phila, we have provided some sound evidence to back up Wilt's accomplishments, but the ignorant masses just don't see it. If being a high jump champion, all world basketball player, best volleyball player on the planet in his late 30s, and dominating Magic in his mid-40s isn't enough to convince some of these people, I doubt anything will.

I love DRob about as much as anyone on the board. The age where I was able to watch a game and understand what was going was the same time as DRob's rookie season, so you can say that I've been hooked from day one.

Having said that, to say that DRob was more athletic than Wilt reeks of homerism, ignorance, or downright stupidity plain and simple.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

[polandprzem]

6eIE5cznPS8

[ohmwrecker]

This is starting to get a little annoying. You guys should go out on a date or something.

[Brazil]

eBXgvdVvFL0

Also here is a video filmed in the late 80s, where Jerry West, Paul Arizin and Billy Cunningham.

If you still have doubts here is another video.

RdHJOFCbUhg

I know there are not many videos, but I have plenty of books and there are tons of interviews that talk about how athletic Wilt was.

Thanks Phila for sharing these vids ! I recognize I'm not a big expert on 60's BB and I appreciate your comments on the players of this era.

Just for my curiosity I'm sure you already stated that but in the greatest list where do you consider Wilt ?

[Brazil]

This is starting to get a little annoying. You guys should go out on a date or something.

:nope I think it's an interesting thread, I'm learning stuff. Do you prefer the 2009 Greek NT threads ?

[polandprzem]

Which part do you disagree with?
I disagree with the part that you think I can disagree with any Wilt highlight or interview

[mathbzh]

Thanks Phila for your documented posts.
I must admit I don't know much about Wilt and how athletic he was.
I don't even really know how athletic D-Rob really was. I watched the Spurs in the 90s but I grew up in France and didn't know David could walk on his hands...

On Wikipedia (I know it is not a reliable source but it is the only one I have) it is reported that:


during the physical tests that the Academy gives all incoming plebes he scored higher in gymnastics than anyone in his class. This was even more impressive due to his height: 6 ft 7 in (2.01 m) at the time.

If it is true, it is very impressive. Do you think Wilt could have done anything similar?
Wilt was stronger, he may have been faster and a better jumper, but I guess he was not as coordinated and flexible as David.

[ambchang]

It means that he was not doing the things Dave was doing on the court, athleticly.

Wilt wasn't doing what Jerome James was doing on the court athletically either. You provided the explanation for why that happened, and it was simply because alley-oops were not being used during the days Wilt was playing.



Which answer will provide you to say I'm stupid ? :)

Yes would. Because saying Jerome James is more athletic than Wilt Chamberlain would be quite stupid.

[kingmalaki]

Do you think the argument could be made that there is now much more skilled players at the guard position, which is making centers that might have been viewed as dominant less so, because the game has become so much more focused on the perimeter? I'm not saying this is the case, I'm just throwing some conjecture out there that the league is insanely deep with 6'5-6'7 guards that have much more ability to get into the lane than at any other point in NBA history, so centers might have lost value as the game increases in speed and shifts offensively to a more open offense.

No, not at all. Dominant centers are still seen as a major focal point in this league and they still have tremendous value. Look at all the success teams have had this decade around Shaq, Duncan...and even Howard just got to the Finals. Pivots are still being drafted higher than potential stud wings as well (see Oden vs Durant). The pivots today just suck...that's all....

[kingmalaki]

This post is going to sound like a "hating" one, but I swear that it's not. With all of Robinson's athletic gifts, why was he never able to develop a trustworthy post game? He was still an elite scorer but with all those gifts I was always surprised that he wasn't better on the box.

[ambchang]

athleticism has nothing to do with a post game.
McHale was great in the post, I wouldn't call him overly athletic.
Stromile Swift was very athletic, and yet he doesn't have much of a post move.

Robinson's athleticism gives him unusual speed for a man of his size, the best way for him to utilize it is to face up and blow past his man for a dunk/layup.

[kingmalaki]

This post just wreaks of ignorance.

Robinson led the league in dunks.

Robinson led the league in rebounds.

Robinson led the league in FTA.

Robinson led the league in FTM.

You know why he did? Because he played in the paint on offense and defense, getting hacked over and over again.

Before his back was shot, he was either #1 or #2 in FTA and FTM every single year he played a full season. He even finished #4 the year he played only 68 games.

You are also talking about a guy who guarded Shaq one on one in the playoffs with a hernia and a hip pointer. All the while the supposedly toughest player in the game, Shaq, would take chunks of games off with an ingrown toenail.

When he mentioned that he was "soft", I think he was referring to his style of play. For all of Robinson's physical advantages, he still preferred to play outside of the paint and shoot jumpers (I believe the poster alluded to hating this when he watched him), as opposed to banging down low with folks (David never really had a great low-post game). The difference between Shaq and Kobe offensively, and Robinson and T-Mac is that the first pair seem to initiate contact more...while the latter shied away from it more. No better way to explain a center who you swear is the most athletic ever living on the perimeter.

If I had a live simulator of Robinson and he was isod on someone and needed a bucket, I see him deciding to shoot a jumper rather then go down low, even though he had all of these physical advantages that folks here are mentioning.

[ohmwrecker]

:nope I think it's an interesting thread, I'm learning stuff. Do you prefer the 2009 Greek NT threads ?

No! Sorry, you're right . . . carry on.

[JamStone]

athleticism has nothing to do with a post game.
McHale was great in the post, I wouldn't call him overly athletic.
Stromile Swift was very athletic, and yet he doesn't have much of a post move.

Robinson's athleticism gives him unusual speed for a man of his size, the best way for him to utilize it is to face up and blow past his man for a dunk/layup.


Being athletic or not being athletic doesn't determine whether a player has a good post game or not, but I wouldn't say athleticism has "nothing" to do with a post game.

It takes some level of athleticism to be effective in the post. It doesn't mean the best athletes are great post players or players that don't have great overall athleticism can't be good in the post, as you already alluded to. But, being effective in the post requires agility, balance, coordination, reaction time, quick hands and quick feet, upper body and lower body strength and using any combination of those aspects of athleticism along with some skill to be an effective low post scorer. Yes, it also takes some level of skill, but athleticism is very much a part of it as well.

Obviously, David Robinson was a great athlete. That's not at issue. He had great quickness for his size, good balance as suggested by his hand walking story, natural coordination as is shown in his above average free throw shooting for a big man who whottt says never worked on his game, and what most would agree is great upper body strength. Now, the aspect of athleticism that may have affected his ability to be an effective low post scorer could be the strength and bulk in his lower core, his rear end and thighs, which is required to effectively back down other big, strong athletes in the post. That has to do with athleticism. You add that to perhaps (and I'm just guessing) some lack of skill in the low post, understandable since, again as whottt stated, David never ever worked on his game, and maybe some of those other aspects of athleticism where David was very good but not great in, and those give insight why David could be an effective and even dominant big man in the game without being a consistent low post scorer. Maybe it even speaks more highly about his athleticism because he didn't have a great low post game and was still such a great player.

But I still wouldn't say athleticism has "nothing" to do with a low post game.

[ambchang]

When he mentioned that he was "soft", I think he was referring to his style of play. For all of Robinson's physical advantages, he still preferred to play outside of the paint and shoot jumpers (I believe the poster alluded to hating this when he watched him), as opposed to banging down low with folks (David never really had a great low-post game). The difference between Shaq and Kobe offensively, and Robinson and T-Mac is that the first pair seem to initiate contact more...while the latter shied away from it more. No better way to explain a center who you swear is the most athletic ever living on the perimeter.

If I had a live simulator of Robinson and he was isod on someone and needed a bucket, I see him deciding to shoot a jumper rather then go down low, even though he had all of these physical advantages that folks here are mentioning.

This doesn't explain the fact that Robinson finished #1 or #2 in FTM and FTA in every full season he played right up until his back gave.

Robinson drove the lane and got fouled over and over again. He played in the paint the way a guard or a SF would play in the paint, and that is to drive and score. He doesn't have much of a post game, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't make a living in the paint.

Tony Parker had no post game, but he most definitely made a living in the paint and take a ridiculous amount of beating.

[ambchang]

To JamStone: Fair enough, perhaps I should say Robinson's lack of a post-up game had nothing to do with his athleticism, or lack thereof.

[JamStone]

In your opinion, why did David Robinson not have a strong post up game?

[ambchang]

In your opinion, why did David Robinson not have a strong post up game?

Some players just do not have the touch or the understanding of a post game to be effective. His biggest asset has always been his quickness, and he has worked more on blowing past his man than posting them up and scoring over them.

I personally don't think it was a lack of lower body strength, as he has demonstrated he had a strong lower body on defense, where he could stay his ground against the Shaqs and the Mournings.

[JamStone]

This is the part I just don't get.

If having a good post game requires both skill and athleticism, many would agree that David Robinson had the physical tools required. You even believe it's not a matter of lower body strength. That being the case, it would have to do more about skill. But, skill can be developed, improved and especially with the physical tools David Robinson possessed.

So, I'm left to wonder why David never did in fact get better in that area. Look at other great HOF players like Michael Jordan and Karl Malone, who had great physical tools. Early on in their careers, they used their physical advantages to be great players. It didn't stop Michael from developing his mid post game and fade-away shot or Malone from becoming a better free throw shooter and midrange jump shooter. So, why did it prevent David Robinson from becoming a better low post scorer, in a game where once your physical tools and athleticism start to decline, you'll be less effective without improved skill?

Again, whottt suggested David Robinson never worked on his game, which I still find ridiculous. David was obviously a hard worker when it came to his health, conditioning, physical fitness, strength. But, when it came to his career, he was lazy? He wouldn't work on his basketball "skills?" I don't believe that. A guy with his work ethic and discipline not working on his basketball skills that were important in his professional career? So, what was it? Was he just not ambitious like guys like Jordan? Not concerned with improving or expanding his basketball game? Is that really it?

It simply can't be. And, you can't tell me David Robinson simply lacked an "understanding" of having an effective post game. Robinson wasn't/isn't a stupid person.

To me, it had to do with something regarding physical abilities/athleticism. He had size and strength and length and quickness and balance and coordination. So, why couldn't he be a good low post player? And when he started having back problems and couldn't rely on his pure athleticism, why couldn't he improve his post game then? Did Tim Duncan stunt David Robinson's ability to improve his basketball game? I think it did have something to do with his athleticism. David's superior athleticism helped him in the open court, when it came to outrunning other big men, or quickness when he faced up defenders to get by them. But, when you put him in the post, the quickness is somewhat neutralized because defenders had to cover less ground. Maybe David Robinson didn't have particularly quick feet despite being quick in general. Maybe his reaction time/timing didn't suit low post scoring. And, I still think his lower core had something to do with it, perhaps more about having lower body bulk/mass than strength in order to back down defenders better.

Whatever it was, I really can't believe that it had nothing to do with athleticism. I don't think David Robinson lacked for work ethic or discipline to improve his skill. I don't think he wasn't smart enough to grasp an understanding on how to be an effective low post scorer. I don't think he lacked a "touch" for it. I think while he had great athleticism, his particular athletic traits didn't completely apply well to low post scoring. Otherwise, it's a matter of shying away from contact over and over again. Not wanting to bang. And, most of you would never argue he wasn't tough enough to bang if he wanted to.

[Extra Stout]

In your opinion, why did David Robinson not have a strong post up game?

Apparently he never worked to develop one. I guess blowing by people from the high post for a layup or dunk was more expedient (and fun) than learning positioning and footwork down on the block. And if you can be the MVP and the scoring champion on sheer athleticism, it may take 8 or 9 years in the game to figure out that champions do it the hard way for a reason. By the time that lesson sunk in for Robinson and he developed a passion to get better, he already had Tim Duncan, and Duncan's offensive game was more polished on Day 1 of his career than Robinson's, so Robinson focused on defense.

[Extra Stout]

Whatever it was, I really can't believe that it had nothing to do with athleticism. I don't think David Robinson lacked for work ethic or discipline to improve his skill.Au contraire. That was always the knock on 5-0.

[JamStone]

Apparently he never worked to develop one. I guess blowing by people from the high post for a layup or dunk was more expedient (and fun) than learning positioning and footwork down on the block. And if you can be the MVP and the scoring champion on sheer athleticism, it may take 8 or 9 years in the game to figure out that champions do it the hard way for a reason. By the time that lesson sunk in for Robinson and he developed a passion to get better, he already had Tim Duncan, and Duncan's offensive game was more polished on Day 1 of his career than Robinson's, so Robinson focused on defense.


Au contraire. That was always the knock on 5-0.

I guess I didn't know enough about David Robinson then to know that he was knocked for lack of work ethic and discipline. I wouldn't have guessed that, assuming that couldn't be the case from a military guy who worked that hard on his physical fitness and conditioning.

But, if that's the case, ok.

[diego]

there are thousands of examples of players (whatever sport) who have the tools to play a certain way but dont.

i agree with extra stout, that Robinson didnt realize he needed a post game till it was too late (because of duncan, but also because of his back).

as for the soft thing... no doubt Robinson took plenty of hits, on both ends of the court. but its one thing to take a hit, and another to dish one out. Wilt and Russell talked about that in the interview before, and I think you could put Robinson in the same boat- he liked to play "the right way" more than he liked to win "the wrong way". and to a lot of people that is soft (the opposite mentality example would probably be KMalone). Robinson got the rings on Malone but a lot of times it doesnt work out that way. Personally I think its a little stupid, a little naive, especially in a competition that has human referees (that inevitably make mistakes), but I think its more admirable than reprehensible.

[kingmalaki]

This doesn't explain the fact that Robinson finished #1 or #2 in FTM and FTA in every full season he played right up until his back gave.

Robinson drove the lane and got fouled over and over again. He played in the paint the way a guard or a SF would play in the paint, and that is to drive and score. He doesn't have much of a post game, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't make a living in the paint.

Tony Parker had no post game, but he most definitely made a living in the paint and take a ridiculous amount of beating.

You are basically saying that your C was playing like a SF. I think you are displaying why the poster was calling him soft. I'm assuming that poster preferred to see his centers play like centers.

I'm not really gonna call Robinson soft, because he did show a willingness to bang defensively. He just didn't show that same willingness offensively. I think for a scoring pivot, you can get away without having a post game for a while but once the playoffs go into the late rounds it becomes more necessary (see Dwight Howard last season as an example). When I watched him play, it just seemed like he was more comfy on the perimiter then in the paint. Granted you have seen more Spurs games than me and that doesn't exactly explain him leading the league in foul attempts...although I think some of the attempts had to do with his popularity. I always recall him getting the ref benefit more than Hakeem for example.

[Brazil]

No problem. 60s basketball is my favorite era. It really is amazing how little people know about the past. For example there was no flash and thrill in the 60s, it was all fundamental. Every player in the NBA at that time had to have a complete all around game. They had to be able to shoot, pass, dribble, defend, run, jump and everything else. Now a days we are amazed at players like Manu who have the all around package, but few remember that it was standard in the 60s and 70s.

As for my all time list. I might strike up more conversation, but here it is:

Wilt
Kareem
Jordan

To make it simple I think Wilt is by far the best player to ever play the game and I have millions of reasons why. It was not too long ago someone challeneged me to a Jordan vs Wilt arguement via private messages here on this board. I am not sure if I made that person think Wilt was better than Jordan, but I did make him have a 180 in terms of the way he thought about 1960s basketball and Wilt to where I might have changed his mind.

Wilt and Kareem played in a bigman oriented league where the big man thrived (mostly because of there being no 3 point line). Once the NBA merged with the ABA the NBA changed entirely, and for the better if you ask me. As I said before 60s basketball was fundamentals with no flash, the only flashy team back then was the Globetrotters. Now the ABA was very similar to a whole league of Globetrotter teams in terms of how the game was played with rim shaking dunks and afros. The individual player was advertised more. With the exception of Russell/Chamberlain it was always 6ers vs Knicks, or Celtics vs Lakers. No one player was really put out in a huge market for their teams like Kobe, LeBron and Wade are today. The NBA of today is basically a bigger version of the old ABA with less crazyness.

I've gotten slightly off the point though, sorry. But with this ABA/NBA merger the guard became more important with the style of play. When the 3 point line was introduced this fact became more clear. The 3 point play is one of the most important plays in the game today. Sure it is only one more point, but that 1 more point means a lot now a days. It spreads the floor helping the big man and is very exciting, but it also limited the big man's importance.

The point of basketball is pretty simple, get the easiest shot possible. Would there really be much of a reason to shoot from 23 feet back in Wilt and Kareem's day? Now lets rephrase slightly, would there be much of a point to shoot from 23 feet with Wilt or Kareem on your team? 2 points under the basket is the same on the scoreboard as 2 points from a made half court shot, only the half court shot is much easier.

For the most part I think I have made my point. If not please say so or PM me and I would be happy to explain.


How Wilt number would be translated today ? I know it's an impossible task to evaluate but I would like to have your feeling considering he would have less opportunity of scoring due to the 3 pts introduction etc... He would be what ? a 25 / 15 / 5 center ? 30 / 15 / 5 ? for scoring it's safe to imagine above 30 pts, he was also a good passing big a 5 to 7 asp maybe but for rebounds I don't know, I imagine at least 15 but can we imagine more than that ?

I was also surprised to see that you rank kareem so high, in my mind MJ / Magic / Russel to give just 3 names are above him.

[The Franchise]

And you are quite simply on dangerous amounts of crack if you think Hakeem was a better athlete than Drob was. Hakeem had about the same level of athleticism as Tim Duncan. Duncan might even be more athletic, and he's been playing on one knee since the 2000 season.

WOW!! This is some retarded shit!! :lol

[whottt]

Ok just to get this back on track...I see a lot stupid shit being said in this thread.

#1. David Robinson didn't need a freaking post up game. The MF could draw double teams with what he could do, and he could foul men out. David Robinson was one of the greatest scoring bigmen to ever step foot on a basketball court, period.

What David could do, was draw double and triple teams, what David could not do, was kick it out to anyone, the primary way of beating them, for anyh bigman, because he had no one to kick it out too.

David Robinson was not the reason his teams did not win titles, he was the only reason they were even in the playoffs, as evidenced by the season he wasn't healthy.

And he didn't finish in last freaking place when he was surrounded by crap either.


The only way to stop David, was to double him, whether he had a post up game or not.



#2. And this is the really stupid claim I see being made, that David needed to be more physical on offense. The man's primary way of scoring was drawing a foul, this is like basketball 101 that is the most phyical way to score. Leading the league in FTA means you were physical, look at the other guys on the list that did it if you do no get this simple fact.


Just so you guys asking for more physicality get this, Hakeem Olajuwon played 18 seasons, 4 more than David, and took 600 fewer free throws. Then consider the fact that David only played half the court for pretty much the last 3rd of his career.

He's taken about 2000 more than Tim Duncan.

David Robinson is on the short list of the greatest players in history at getting to the line, he ranks #12 and I think Karrem, Moses, Shaq and Wilt are the only C's ahead of him(and only Wilt played in as few seasons). Karreem and Moses played 20 years apiece, and unlike Shaq and Wilt, they didn't foul David intentionally, because he was a good FT shooter...in fact he was a better FT shooter than the PG he played the majority of his career with(he was also a better 3 shooter but that's another debate).

It's stupid to say he wasn't physical when he got the shit hacked out of him by fucking Karl Malone, among others. David got his ass beat every year of the playoffs because he didn't have anyone else that could take over a game. Period. He took an asskicking and people don't get that.

You know why you don't get it? Because David didn't whine about it, that's why.

I mean you guys saying this shit must have never played a game of basketball or something.


Stupid arguments. David was plenty physical, that's why his career was short and he was usually taking the toughest assignment on both ends of the court.


This man was not soft...and those criticisms are bullshit.

[whottt]

And one other thing...without a doubt Wilt is the greatest basketball player ever. I don't even see how this is debated, whether he was a product of his era or not, there's still no one even close. Whether he's the greatest athlete or not(and Drob is definitely in the debate with him whether anyone likes it or not)

That said, he played the same number of years as Drob, and he's got the same number of titles, and don't tell me he didn't play with anyone either. Jerry West...

Nate Thurmond, the only big besides Hakeem and Drob to record a quad double...the original twin towers combo, and he won no title with him.

And Jam, Drob never broadened his game, because he didn't have to. He got the job done and did what was asked of him, no matter what it was, and no matter which side of the ball they were asking him to do it on.

Drob and Michael Jordan, only players to win a DPOY and scoring title.
Drob and Kareem, only players to lead the leage in blocks, scoring and rebounding.
Drob and Wilt, only C's to score over 70 points in a game.

Lead the NBA in FTA, multiple times,.
Lead the NBA in rebounding, multiple times.
Lead the NBA in dunks, multiple times.
Top 5 finish in steals.
Scoring title.
Lead the league in blocks.
Lead his team in assists.

GTFO if you think this guy wasn't good enough to win a title, every freaking time he stepped on the court.

Right up to the last game he played, which incidentally clinched a championship, with him as the starting C.


ETC...

There is one strong parallel between Wilt and Dave that is never mentioned...

Everyone always mentions David's numbers going down in the post season, Wilt's did often too. Especially when he had no help...those double and triple teams are a killer, when you are surrounded by shit....that is of course excluding the years Wilt's team finished in last place and missed the playoffs, something David's never did.

David never finished below second place in the division.

[Cry Havoc]

Realistically I'd say Wilt would still probably average around 20 rebounds assuming he still played 45+ minutes per game. The points and assists are question marks. I can actually see him averaging near 10 assists per game because of the way he would demand double teams and he could easily pass out to the open shooters. The points would be in the high 20s early 30s because of his ability to run the floor and score in the low post would make him the ultimate scorer in today's game. Plus as Wilt said himself in his video the players of today couldn't touch him without drawing a foul. Back in Wilts day he could be hammered all the time from all directions by a lot of players. Something that we might think is an obvious foul today might have sporatically been called in the 60s.

Now in terms of where I rank Russell on the all time great list? That is a tough question. If I were to play a pick up game with the all time greats standing on the line I would go with Wilt Jordan etc. My opinion on Russell as a team mate is different though. I think Russell is bay far the greatest leader of all time. He elevated the play of his team mates and was unselfish. The last thing I mentioned, unselfishness, is probably the most important. Russell always had great players around him, unlike Wilt, and with that talent around him it made it easier for Russell to do what he did best which in turn made things easier for the rest of his players.

The Celtics best advantage in the 1960s was Red. He was crafty and he knew most of the collegic coaches at all levels. This made things easier when drafting players. Scouts were not as widely used as they are today and Red used his connections to know who the best players were. The diamonds in the rough. He asked around and found out about players like Sam Jones that he drafted late in the first round. That coupled with loads of luck made the Celtics great.

I respect a lot of things you've said, and I agree that Wilt is one of (if not the) most athletic NBA player of all-time, but I don't see any possibility of him averaging 30/20/10 a game. Sorry, I think that's just you being quite a bit of a homer. Saying that Wilt would average 10 assists against today's defenses is a massive reach and I think it reveals a lot about how biased you are in this argument. I don't mean to insult -- but to suggest a player would put up that kind of triple-double numbers today is kind of ridiculous.

I would say something like 28/14/6 would be the statline I expect from him. You can say I'm a hater all you want, but that's an all-world statline.

I just DO really, strongly, intensely feel that today's level of NBA competition far surpasses what Wilt faced in his day, and to me there's not really even a debate worth having about this. Just from the talent pool alone of millions upon millions of players now vs. in the 60s when there was so much less scouting and so much less money involved... it's a different game now.

[whottt]

Wilt is so dominant, I mean not only is there no one close in his era, but no one has even come close to being as dominant in any other era. He's unquesionably the greatest player, even if a product of his era.


But athleticism is different, don't even try to freaking tell me the level of athletecism in the sixties is what it is now....when there are 7 foot shooting guards in the league.

Not only would he have to contend with more big bodies, he'd have to contend with more guys capable of keeping up with him. He'd definitely notice the difference in eras.

[Cry Havoc]

Wilt is so dominant, I mean not only is there no one close in his era, but no one has even come close to being as dominant in any other era. He's unquesionably the greatest player, even if a product of his era.


But athleticism is different, don't even try to freaking tell me the level of athletecism in the sixties is what it is now....when there are 7 foot shooting guards in the league.

Not only would he have to contend with more big bodies, he'd have to contend with more guys capable of keeping up with him. He'd definitely notice the difference in eras.

You could also make the argument that David and LeBron as well would make fantastic sprinters in their own right. I'm unsure about Dave, but James timed a 4.40 40 yard, which equates out to a sub-10 second 100 meter dash. I'm pretty sure if he actually tried, Lebron could be hovering right around 10 seconds or maybe just over.

I know this topic was originally about centers, I'm just suggesting that Wilt's athleticism is not vastly superior to the best in today's NBA, if at all.

[mathbzh]

Realistically I'd say Wilt would still probably average around 20 rebounds assuming he still played 45+ minutes per game. The points and assists are question marks. I can actually see him averaging near 10 assists per game because of the way he would demand double teams and he could easily pass out to the open shooters. The points would be in the high 20s early 30s because of his ability to run the floor and score in the low post would make him the ultimate scorer in today's game. Plus as Wilt said himself in his video the players of today couldn't touch him without drawing a foul. Back in Wilts day he could be hammered all the time from all directions by a lot of players. Something that we might think is an obvious foul today might have sporatically been called in the 60s.


I think you are a bit optimistic there.
First, no coach would allow Wilt to play that much. Last season no player broke the 40 mpg mark. In 61-62 they were 7. This is not about stamina or durability it is about coaching. I guess Wilt would play 40 mpg at best.

Then the rebounds. In 61-62 Wilt Wilt averaged 27.2 rpg. This is great but it is just 36% of the team rebounds, and the warriors were not even the best rebounding team. With 36% of the Lakers rebounds, Wilt would reach 16 rpg, probably less because he would not play 48 mpg, would not have the same physical advantage and with the 3pt line I suppose there are more long rebounds.

The 30 ppg would not be so surprising. I guess he would have no problem to reach the 25 ppg mark, then it is open for discussion.

10 apg is also very unlikely. First he never did it back in the 60s. And when he reached his best mark (8.6) he was not anymore a 30 ppg player. I guess he would be a good passing big man somewhere in the 3-5 apg range.

If he was as dominant as in the early 60s, I bet he would be a 30 ppg / 15 rpg / 4 apg in 40 minutes player and probably a good amount of blocks. This would already be a great statline comparable with Shaq best years (with much more rebounds). We will never know how dominant he would have been but
30/20/10 is out of the realm of reality.

[romain.star]

i think you are a bit optimistic there.
First, no coach would allow wilt to play that much. Last season no player broke the 40 mpg mark. In 61-62 they were 7. This is not about stamina or durability it is about coaching. I guess wilt would play 40 mpg at best.

Then the rebounds. In 61-62 wilt wilt averaged 27.2 rpg. This is great but it is just 36% of the team rebounds, and the warriors were not even the best rebounding team. With 36% of the lakers rebounds, wilt would reach 16 rpg, probably less because he would not play 48 mpg, would not have the same physical advantage and with the 3pt line i suppose there are more long rebounds.

The 30 ppg would not be so surprising. I guess he would have no problem to reach the 25 ppg mark, then it is open for discussion.

10 apg is also very unlikely. First he never did it back in the 60s. And when he reached his best mark (8.6) he was not anymore a 30 ppg player. I guess he would be a good passing big man somewhere in the 3-5 apg range.

If he was as dominant as in the early 60s, i bet he would be a 30 ppg / 15 rpg / 4 apg in 40 minutes player and probably a good amount of blocks. This would already be a great statline comparable with shaq best years (with much more rebounds). We will never know how dominant he would have been but
30/20/10 is out of the realm of reality.

+1

[Obstructed_View]

I am a Chamberlain fan, I have seen more of his interviews than you, believe me I know when he is far off. My overall knowledge of 60s basketball is among the best on this board.

Yet you said he was "never" far off, which is stupid. You know damn good and well that, absolutely great as he was, he stretched the truth many times, and even made shit up on occasion. If you know so much about him, I'm not sure why you'd even bother to argue this point.

[Obstructed_View]

Francisco Elson could outrun Wilt. That isn't trolling or sarcasm either.

Nope, just straight stupidity right from the moron-messiah.

[mathbzh]

There is a problem with your theory about assists.
In 1967-1968 the average team assist was almost 23 apg.
In 2008-2009 it is just under 21 apg.

Maybe it was more difficult to score an assist, but the higher scoring (122 ppg for the Sixers, 109 for the Bulls) made the assist numbers slighlty better than they are now.

But this is a bit far from the initial subject. I agree Wilt was great then and would be great now whatever his stats would say.

[polandprzem]

Wilt wasn't doing what Jerome James was doing on the court athletically either. You provided the explanation for why that happened, and it was simply because alley-oops were not being used during the days Wilt was playing.
Is that really so difficlut to acknowledge the diference in:
Was doing
Was NOT doing

?




Yes would. Because saying Jerome James is more athletic than Wilt Chamberlain would be quite stupid.
Where did you lost your sarcasm detector?

[ambchang]

You are basically saying that your C was playing like a SF. I think you are displaying why the poster was calling him soft. I'm assuming that poster preferred to see his centers play like centers.

It really is no secret that Robinson was born more of a 7' SF or PF than a real center. He never really had a center game, but that doesn't make him soft, it just makes him play out of position his whole career, and achieved all the accomplishments he did.


I'm not really gonna call Robinson soft, because he did show a willingness to bang defensively. He just didn't show that same willingness offensively. I think for a scoring pivot, you can get away without having a post game for a while but once the playoffs go into the late rounds it becomes more necessary (see Dwight Howard last season as an example). When I watched him play, it just seemed like he was more comfy on the perimiter then in the paint. Granted you have seen more Spurs games than me and that doesn't exactly explain him leading the league in foul attempts...although I think some of the attempts had to do with his popularity. I always recall him getting the ref benefit more than Hakeem for example.

Robinson would get hacked all game long in the playoffs with no calls for him. There is just no way a referee is going to foul out an entire front line game after game in the playoffs, and that is what the opposition figured. Another thing is that Robinson couldn't finish as well with contact as the other great ones. Hakeem and Duncan would get hacked around the basket and still score, but Robinson just couldn't, and that really hampers him during the playoffs, when contact is expected.

His game was to drive to the basket and dunk it, but the lanes close in the playoffs, and teams force you beat them inside. The Spurs didn't really have anyone who could consistently nail down open jumpers to open up the lane, and that allowed teams to double and triple Robinson, daring the other Spurs to beat them.

When your starting PG's biggest achievement in life is nailing down an open 18-foot jumper, and was waived multiple times by the Rockets as a 3rd string PG, you know you never had really good point guards.

BTW, Robinson got a lot less calls than he should have gotten, check any playoff games, he would be hacked multiple times on the same play, and there would be no calls.

[polandprzem]

Man, people are so short sighted

[ambchang]

Is that really so difficlut to acknowledge the diference in:
Was doing
Was NOT doing

?

So you are using an aspect of the game that Wilt was not doing, and Jerome James was doing as an argument to say that Wilt was not as athletic as Robinson?

Wilt wasn't shooting 3 pters back in the day either because there was no 3-pt line in the NBA, doesn't mean anything with regards to athletic ability.


Where did you lost your sarcasm detector?

I dropped it in the toilet.

[Chieflion]

HA... HAHAHA.... HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA




I can see him averaging maybe 5 assists at MOST. You're saying he's a better passer than Garnett, Duncan and Shaq? Not only them, but players like LeBron James? LOL! Let's be real... he got his great stats based on being bigger than everybody else and having some guard skills. There are so many big men today that would provide resistance to him, that are just as big and just as athletic.
5 assists only? I could see Wilt gettting 7-8 assists. He led the league in assists in one particular year. It was difficult to get assists in that era because of the rules and the shooting percentage of the players back then. Realistically, a triple double once every 4 games for Wilt is very possible.

[polandprzem]

So you are using an aspect of the game that Wilt was not doing, and Jerome James was doing as an argument to say that Wilt was not as athletic as Robinson?

Good, now tell me something about me, because I don't know nothing about me realy, and you are so good at assuming what I meant to say. So I will be waiting. Tell me what do I like to eat?
You probably knows that from the post I have made about the things Wilt was doing and not doing on the court huh?

Shit Usain Bolt is a great athlete but would he be able to do such wonderfull stuff on the court as he is doing on the athletics arena?
He must have been because he is so athletic.

People are so short sighted -> You assume that I was talking that Wilt was a shitty player just because I said he was not doing the things DRob was doing on the court. And that one was from the observation.
Nice

Good to know that Wilt was running fast and jumping high but it not translate to the basketball court. At least not that greatly as some people think.

there are milions og great athletes but when they step to the basketball court thay can't use that adventages. [I'm not saying that Wilt had no skills, that's btw.]


Next thing - Wilt could do all the stuff you say on backyard on practice and stuff (still you can't prove it). But he was not doing it during games. And I really do not care if it was prohibited or not. he was NOT doing it during games.

That's why I mentioned about Wilts potential doing athletic stuff on the court and Daves full explored abilieties (becasue in 90s you could allow your athletics flow :) )






Wilt wasn't shooting 3 pters back in the day either because there was no 3-pt line in the NBA, doesn't mean anything with regards to athletic ability.
Out of nowhere :rolleyes



I dropped it in the toilet.
Go look for it



Ps. Wlt is the best indyvidual player that ever played this game
Wilt was far the most dominant force in the NBA (Mikan, Jordan come close)
Wilt was freak as it comes to the athletic adventage he had over his opponents. And in 90s or 00s he would still be the most dominant in NBA when you put him in realia of this NBA.

I don't know then what kind of points you want to argue me with?

[mathbzh]

5 assists only? I could see Wilt gettting 7-8 assists. He led the league in assists in one particular year. It was difficult to get assists in that era because of the rules and the shooting percentage of the players back then. Realistically, a triple double once every 4 games for Wilt is very possible.

Wilt could get 7-8 assist, but I think he would not (just like any superstar in his prime Duncan, Lebron, Kobe, Garnett...).

[lurker23]

I don't think it's out of the realm that Wilt would average 8-10 assists in today's game. When you've got a player as dominant as Wilt, you run the ball through him as much as you possibly can, even more than the Spurs run 4-down. Surround him with guys who can hit spot-up jumpers, as well as someone like Fabricio Oberto who can make a cut off the double team and score a lot of back-door layups, and watch his assist numbers skyrocket.

[ambchang]

While it is not entirely impossible that Wilt could average 8 to 10 assists in today’s game, it is not very likely.

People remember the year Wilt led the league in assists, but forgot that he averaged less than 5 assists a game 10 out of his 14 years in the league, and while averaging 5+ assists in any season in the NBA for a center is phenomenal, it doesn’t go near 8 to 10 assists per game.

On top of that, it wasn’t tougher for the league to get assists back in the day. The league was seeing 9.1 to 11.5 assists a game for the league leaders back during Wilt’s days, and Chris Paul averaged 11 assists per game last year. The league was also averaging around 20.95 to 25.2 assists per team per game back in Wilt’s game, but 21 assists last year.

Also, when you look at Wilt’s assist leading year. He led the league in assists totals, not average. Oscar Robertson led the league in assists average at 9.7 apg (vs. 8.6 for Wilt), but played less games due to injuries. Again, having 8.6 assists per game was absolutely incredible for a center, but that is not something that he was doing in regularity, he did in once, when his scoring average dropped off steeply from his earlier years.

It is highly unlikely he could average 30ppg and 8 apg in one season nowadays, when the overall scoring was much lower than the 60’s, when he couldn’t pull it off during his days.

[Nathan Explosion]

While it is not entirely impossible that Wilt could average 8 to 10 assists in today’s game, it is not very likely.

People remember the year Wilt led the league in assists, but forgot that he averaged less than 5 assists a game 10 out of his 14 years in the league, and while averaging 5+ assists in any season in the NBA for a center is phenomenal, it doesn’t go near 8 to 10 assists per game.

On top of that, it wasn’t tougher for the league to get assists back in the day. The league was seeing 9.1 to 11.5 assists a game for the league leaders back during Wilt’s days, and Chris Paul averaged 11 assists per game last year. The league was also averaging around 20.95 to 25.2 assists per team per game back in Wilt’s game, but 21 assists last year.

Also, when you look at Wilt’s assist leading year. He led the league in assists totals, not average. Oscar Robertson led the league in assists average at 9.7 apg (vs. 8.6 for Wilt), but played less games due to injuries. Again, having 8.6 assists per game was absolutely incredible for a center, but that is not something that he was doing in regularity, he did in once, when his scoring average dropped off steeply from his earlier years.

It is highly unlikely he could average 30ppg and 8 apg in one season nowadays, when the overall scoring was much lower than the 60’s, when he couldn’t pull it off during his days.

Actually, it's easier to get assists these days. There's a story out there where a guy talks about how he was told that "so and so" was going to have double digit. One night he actually awarded Nick Van Exel 23 assists.

http://deadspin.com/5345287/the-confessions-of-an-nba-scorekeeper

http://deadspin.com/5336974/how-an-nba-scorekeeper-cooked-the-books


Back in the day, it is accepted that any stats that were awarded were earned. Also, Wilt was told he needed to score, not pass in Philly. He mentions it in an interview.

A coach pointed out that his team lost more when he scored tons of points, therefore he was asked to pass the ball more. He did and eventually lead the league in assists. Wilt low assists weren't due to his lack of ability to pass the ball, but rather, the gameplan of his coach.

[Nathan Explosion]

As Alex remembers it now, Olajuwon had a double-double with nine blocks at some point during the fourth quarter. "Someone in management came to me and said, basically, Thou shalt give Hakeem Olajuwon a triple-double. Come hell or high water, he's getting a triple-double. I'm like, uh, OK." The Grizzlies had small monitors on which they kept a running box score. Anyone could see if someone was closing in on a milestone. "If a guy is in vicinity of a record, people are tracking those things. I know those things," Alex says. "If a guy has an eight-game streak of getting 10 rebounds, I'll know that. Am I gonna help that? Probably." The Rockets game, though, "was the one time someone said, 'You'll do this.' And I did." (For the record, Alex is reasonably certain that the 10th block was legitimate. "If he got a bullshit block," he says, "it probably happened before the 10th one.")

Taken from this story.

http://deadspin.com/5345287/the-confessions-of-an-nba-scorekeeper

[ambchang]

I have no doubt that Wilt had the ability to pass the ball, you don't average 8.6 assists one season without being able to pass the ball. And yes, him getting or not getting assists were basedon game plan, much like how nobody would ever average 10 assists a game playing under the Spurs system.

But the point is, even though Wilt was asked to pass the ball at a faster pace system, he was still able to get "only 8.6 assists", while scoring around 24 ppg. To suggest that he could score 30ppg and get 8 to 10 assists per game in today's slower paced game is really stretching it.

As for cooking the books with regards of stat keeping, I would imagine if that did happen today, it would have been even more rampant back in the day with the lack of auditing and hiring enough people to double and triple check everything.

[Fernando TD21]

There is only a limited number of possessions a player can have in a game. When Wilt was taking more shots, he was probably averaging less assists. So you can't combine his best season for assists with his best season for points.
http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=CHAMBWI01

Teams also averaged more possessions per game in the 60's, which would contribute to inflate a little some stats.

[kingmalaki]

David got his ass beat every year of the playoffs because he didn't have anyone else that could take over a game. Period.


Your superstar is supposed to be the one taking over the game.....

[kingmalaki]

It really is no secret that Robinson was born more of a 7' SF or PF than a real center. He never really had a center game, but that doesn't make him soft, it just makes him play out of position his whole career, and achieved all the accomplishments he did.

I don't think he is soft. Looking at the posters post, I think he said he was soft because he didn't have much of a post game. If you prefer your C to play like a C then I can see why you would say that.

[JamStone]

People are so short sighted -> You assume that I was talking that Wilt was a shitty player just because I said he was not doing the things DRob was doing on the court. And that one was from the observation.
Nice

Good to know that Wilt was running fast and jumping high but it not translate to the basketball court. At least not that greatly as some people think.

there are milions og great athletes but when they step to the basketball court thay can't use that adventages. [I'm not saying that Wilt had no skills, that's btw.]


Next thing - Wilt could do all the stuff you say on backyard on practice and stuff (still you can't prove it). But he was not doing it during games. And I really do not care if it was prohibited or not. he was NOT doing it during games.

That's why I mentioned about Wilts potential doing athletic stuff on the court and Daves full explored abilieties (becasue in 90s you could allow your athletics flow :) )

This is not the same argument you initially made. You talked about what either Robinson or Wilt "was capable of doing." Not what they actually did. And, when you initially argued that, you were questioning Wilt's athleticism.

What you contend now is not the same thing. You aren't questioning Wilt's athleticism now. You question the application of his athleticism to the basketball court.

In your initial comments, you question do question Wilt's athleticism. In these arguments, you acknowledge his athleticism but question how they translated on the basketball court and whether they helped make him a better basketball player.

And, you continue to talk about not seeing Wilt do things on the court. Many of the youtube videos Phila has posted show these things. It seems you just don't want to acknowledge them because your original sentiments regarding Wilt's athleticism were inaccurate.

[Nathan Explosion]

As for cooking the books with regards of stat keeping, I would imagine if that did happen today, it would have been even more rampant back in the day with the lack of auditing and hiring enough people to double and triple check everything.

Actually, the story teller suggest it was more rampant now because of the immediacy of the stats. There is less oversight because the stats have to get out faster. Look at an ESPN Game Cast someday to get what I'm saying.

Also, ESPN has played a huge role. Notice how many times the story teller mentions getting the Grizz on SportsCenter or getting national spotlight by doctoring the books a bit to make the game seem more appealing.

The story teller proved that there is actually little to no oversight on the actual stats. I mean, NICK VAN EXEL HAD 23 ASSISTS!!! :rollin

All the hype and national attention just didn't exist during the 60s and therefore, provided little incentive to "make the game more appealing".

[ambchang]

Good, now tell me something about me, because I don't know nothing about me realy, and you are so good at assuming what I meant to say. So I will be waiting. Tell me what do I like to eat?
You probably knows that from the post I have made about the things Wilt was doing and not doing on the court huh?
You explicitly said Wilt wasn’t catching and flushing alleyoops during a discussion about their respective athleticism.

You pulled out an example that Wilt didn’t do strictly because of the fact that alleyoops don’t happen in games during Wilt’s time as some sort of argument that Wilt is not as athletic as Robinson.


Shit Usain Bolt is a great athlete but would he be able to do such wonderfull stuff on the court as he is doing on the athletics arena?
He must have been because he is so athletic.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.

People are so short sighted -> You assume that I was talking that Wilt was a shitty player just because I said he was not doing the things DRob was doing on the court. And that one was from the observation .
Nice

I am not sure how this would relate to being short-sighted. Nobody ever said you are minimizing Wilt’s accomplishments on the court when you said he didn’t do some of the things Robinson did (like flushing down an alleyoop in authority), people read it as your proof to say that Wilt is not as athletic as Robinson because he did not do something when such a thing didn’t exist back in the day.


Good to know that Wilt was running fast and jumping high but it not translate to the basketball court. At least not that greatly as some people think.

How do you figure? How do you think the man grabbed 55 rebounds in one game and scored 100 points in one game? How do you figure he block those shots at the apex of their trajectory?


there are milions og great athletes but when they step to the basketball court thay can't use that adventages. [I'm not saying that Wilt had no skills, that's btw.]


Next thing - Wilt could do all the stuff you say on backyard on practice and stuff (still you can't prove it). But he was not doing it during games. And I really do not care if it was prohibited or not. he was NOT doing it during games.

So it’s Wilt fault for not converting alleyoops when they don’t exist in his time?


That's why I mentioned about Wilts potential doing athletic stuff on the court and Daves full explored abilieties (becasue in 90s you could allow your athletics flow :) )

That doesn’t speak to how athletic Wilt was or wasn’t, more about him being more restricted.


Out of nowhere :rolleyes

Absolutely not, it flows from the same and only logic you have been using, and that is you don’t care whether Wilt was restricted in his options because he wasn’t accomplishing certain feats on the court. You don’t care there wasn’t any 3-pt lines back in the day, just that Wilt didn’t shoot any, just as you would say that Shaq was doing perimeter stuff that Jerry West couldn’t do, because Shaq actually made 1 3 pter, and West made none in his career, nevermind that there were no 3pt shots in West’s time.


Go look for it

Ps. Wlt is the best indyvidual player that ever played this game
Wilt was far the most dominant force in the NBA (Mikan, Jordan come close)
Wilt was freak as it comes to the athletic adventage he had over his opponents. And in 90s or 00s he would still be the most dominant in NBA when you put him in realia of this NBA.

I don't know then what kind of points you want to argue me with?
Mostly this:

As for achievements I ment the things Dave was capable of doing on the court.
He was capable of doing much more then Wilt.
So you was talking about potential that Wilt had and would heve been superior to Daves in the same 90s era

You didn’t say Dave did much more, you said capable. You later change your stance Wilt didn’t do it, and I don’t care that his era didn’t allow for it.

You have shifting arguments that have no central point. What are you arguing? That Wilt can’t do what David do, and Wilt didn’t demonstrate what David did?

And if it’s the later, what significance does that have to do with their respective athleticism?

[ambchang]

Actually, the story teller suggest it was more rampant now because of the immediacy of the stats. There is less oversight because the stats have to get out faster. Look at an ESPN Game Cast someday to get what I'm saying.

Also, ESPN has played a huge role. Notice how many times the story teller mentions getting the Grizz on SportsCenter or getting national spotlight by doctoring the books a bit to make the game seem more appealing.

The story teller proved that there is actually little to no oversight on the actual stats. I mean, NICK VAN EXEL HAD 23 ASSISTS!!! :rollin

All the hype and national attention just didn't exist during the 60s and therefore, provided little incentive to "make the game more appealing".

I am not sure about this, just the motivation and consequences of it.

Stats were just as glorified back in the day as it is now, and it wouldn't shock me to see people putting in an extra assist here and extra rebound there to push their star players.

Vs. today, teams actually do review their stats. I remember Hakeem's first quadruple double were stripped away after discovering that one of his assists were incorrectly awarded. He had a real one a couple of weeks later.

I would like to see NVE's game, he was at least a decent passer once in a while.

[Nathan Explosion]

I am not sure about this, just the motivation and consequences of it.

Stats were just as glorified back in the day as it is now, and it wouldn't shock me to see people putting in an extra assist here and extra rebound there to push their star players.

Vs. today, teams actually do review their stats. I remember Hakeem's first quadruple double were stripped away after discovering that one of his assists were incorrectly awarded. He had a real one a couple of weeks later.

I would like to see NVE's game, he was at least a decent passer once in a while.

Did you read the actual story? Van Exel didn't come close to 23 assists. One example was NVE passes to the wing, the guy holds the ball for a few seconds, pump fakes, 2 dribbles and the pull up. Swish. Van Exel assisted.

He gave numerous examples of how the stats were being doctored. And the reasons he gave just didn't exist back in the 60s. Getting national attention didn't really matter because there was no Sportscenter or nationally televised games 4 times a weeks or more sometimes.

[howbouthemspurs]

Your superstar is supposed to be the one taking over the game.....

Jordan had Pippen, Wilt had Westand Baylor,, etc... It takes more than one superstar to dominate and win championships.. No matter how hard Robinson played and dominated, it was never enough until Duncan came around!

[JamStone]

What about Hakeem's first championship in Houston?

[Brazil]

Reading of your posts and comparing Wilt potential with LBJ and Howard, I figure that a 25 to 28 / 15 / 5 to 6 could be a realistic one.

To compare Lebron is for the moment a 28 / 8 / 7, Howard is a 21 / 14 / 1. I think rebounding wise Howard must be a good mark to evaluate Wilt stat so a 15 seems to be ok, regarding assist lebron has more assist than a lot of PG in the league I can see Wilt apg being slightly lower than lebron 5 to 6, for scoring being significantely better than Howard is a fact at least +5-6 ppg and slightly lower than Lebron so 25 to 28 could be ok.

[Brazil]

5Knv-KbA8AQ

:lol nostradamus

[kingmalaki]

Jordan had Pippen, Wilt had Westand Baylor,, etc... It takes more than one superstar to dominate and win championships.. No matter how hard Robinson played and dominated, it was never enough until Duncan came around!

That's because Duncan was the star that could take over the game offensively. Everyone needs help, but in some of those cases those stars took over when it mattered. That's what your star is supposed to do.

[kingmalaki]

5Knv-KbA8AQ

Damn, Wilt could pass.....

[Nathan Explosion]

Only? How would he get more? He isn't going to have much of an advantage athletically in this day, if at all. He got his assists by having so much attention drawn to him, simply because of his overwhelming size and length and because of his athleticism. It isn't like he was out there dropping dimes like LeBron. If you can find me a video of Wilt dropping dimes like LeBron, I'll give you a virtual blow job.

God, you just got owned by Phila_Chamberlain. Of course, with a post this ignorant and stupid, it wasn't hard.

Lebron isn't as great a passer as people make him out to be. And to say he doesn't have an advantage athletically is just stupid or have you now read the thread.

Collegiate high jump champion. Numerous rule changes aimed at slowing down Wilt. 55 ppg, 100 pt game, 55 rebound game, lead the league in assists.

After retirement, was arguably the best volleyball player in the world. Dominated Magic when he was 45. Asked to come back to NBA into his 50s. Wanted to box Ali.

Need more proof you were just plain wrong?