David Robinson or Shaquille O'Neal

[Spurs da champs]

Who would you rather have on you're team and who do you think is a better player overall?

[bdictjames]

Lakers' Shaq.

[angelbelow]

this is another tough question, but shaq could be the most dominant center of all time. so im going to have to go with shaq..

[Thomas82]

this is another tough question, but shaq could be the most dominant center of all time. so im going to have to go with shaq..

I disagree, Wilt Chamberlain is the most dominant center of all time.

[DazedAndConfused]

Are you fucking kidding me?

Shaq any day of the week.

[Bob Lanier]

Who would you rather have on you're team
Robinson easily. I don't care if he spouts more religious gibberish than the Pope, he's a lot less obnoxious than Shaq at any point in his career. This is entertainment in the final analysis, and Shaq is simply not fun to watch as a player or likable as a human being. I can't enjoy a championship if I've turned the game off in disgust.

who do you think is a better player overall?
O'Neal. Get the fuck out of here. Robinson was a very nice defensive player and could board a bit, but he's a poor man's Dirk Nowitzki with the ball in his hands. O'Neal was a lazy defender and an even lazier rebounder, though he still put up decent production in both categories - better than D-Rob's in the latter-; but on offense he was an unstoppable scorer the way he was officiated and a very good playmaker.

[v2freak]

Shaq is the more dominant player, but I'd rather have DRob any day of the week. No ego, better person, more dimensions.

[MONTENEGRINO]

I'm not happy to say this, but Shaq. I never loved him, as a player and as a person. But I respected him because what ment his name during the years of his prime. He was reasonably considered as the biggest force of late 90's and early 00's. Those 5-6 years he was No.1 and as most of us remember, Shaq was so dominant that it would be hard to describe to someone who didn't see it.
My opinion is that question would probably be much smarter if it was like ''Shaq or Duncan'' or ''Shaq or Hakeem''. Tim and Hakeem are players you compare Shaq with.

[LakerFanSince84]

If you could transplant David Robinson's brain and put it in Shaq's freakish body Shaq would've been the undisputed best big man to ever play the game. His Lack professionalism and dedication to his craft prevented him from being the greatest center of all time! He still managed to win 4 rings. Scary thought of what could've been!

[adidas11]

Uh, you guys do know that everyone that has played with Shaq, LOVED playing with him. Unlike Kobe...

[stretch]

I disagree, Wilt Chamberlain is the most dominant center of all time.

Only cuz he played in like a 10 team league full of unathletic white guys. And how many 7 footers did he have to combat? the biggest, baddest guy he had to face was Bill Russell, who was barely 6'9, and often times would give him the business. Wilt was a nice player, but would get murdered by guys like Hakeem, or Shaq.

Wilt is massively overrated by his inflated stats.

[BiZNicK]

Better Center, Shaq
Better Person, Robinson

If my intent was to win championships...then I have to go with the better player..shaq

[Nahtanoj]

David Robinson.

[samikeyp]

Better Center, Shaq
Better Person, Robinson

If my intent was to win championships...then I have to go with the better player..shaq

I would agree with that.

I also think that Russell and Wilt were better than both of them.

[jack sommerset]

Thats like asking Jordan or Wilkins.

[Cry Havoc]

Depends on the team.

D-Rob was never on a team like the one Shaq had in LA. I would have liked to have seen what David could have been able to accomplish with a dominant scoring SG.

[stretch]

I also think that Russell and Wilt were better than both of them.

they arent.

[samikeyp]

they arent.

In your opinion. I would disagree.

But that is what makes life fun. :)

[dbreiden83080]

Only cuz he played in like a 10 team league full of unathletic white guys. And how many 7 footers did he have to combat? the biggest, baddest guy he had to face was Bill Russell, who was barely 6'9, and often times would give him the business. Wilt was a nice player, but would get murdered by guys like Hakeem, or Shaq.

Wilt is massively overrated by his inflated stats.

Wilt was 7'1 and a freak of an athlete. He was a dominant volleyball player as well as Basketball. 50 pts a game for a season is great nomatter the era you play in. He would not put that up today but He'd still likely be the best in the game in this era.

[Spur-Addict]

Robinson easily. I don't care if he spouts more religious gibberish than the Pope, he's a lot less obnoxious than Shaq at any point in his career. This is entertainment in the final analysis, and Shaq is simply not fun to watch as a player or likable as a human being. I can't enjoy a championship if I've turned the game off in disgust.

O'Neal. Get the fuck out of here. Robinson was a very nice defensive player and could board a bit, but he's a poor man's Dirk Nowitzki with the ball in his hands. O'Neal was a lazy defender and an even lazier rebounder, though he still put up decent production in both categories - better than D-Rob's in the latter-; but on offense he was an unstoppable scorer the way he was officiated and a very good playmaker.

Bold Statements = :lmao........:lmao..........:nope........:lmao.... Poor mans Dirk?.......Alright

[Spurminator]

We'll never know because the best player David Robinson ever played with in his prime was Sean Elliott and his coaches were John Lucas and Bob Hill.

Shaq has the hardware and you really can't lose if you argue in his favor, but I voted for Robinson because fuck Shaq.

[Spur-Addict]

Wilt was 7'1 and a freak of an athlete. He was a dominant volleyball player as well as Basketball. 50 pts a game for a season is great nomatter the era you play in. He would not put that up today but He'd still likely be the best in the game in this era.

Track and Field as well.

[stretch]

Wilt was 7'1 and a freak of an athlete. He was a dominant volleyball player as well as Basketball. 50 pts a game for a season is great nomatter the era you play in. He would not put that up today but He'd still likely be the best in the game in this era.

Thats my point. There weren't any "freak of an athlete" type players back then, whereas today, the league is LOADED with athleticism, many players who are even superior to Wilt, such as Lebron, or Dwight Howard. I agree its great, but I doubt he would could average much more than 25ppg in todays league.

Give me Duncan any day.

[DazedAndConfused]

Kareem all day every day. Best big man to ever play the game.

[mavs>spurs2]

Kareem all day every day. Best big man to ever play the game.

How would his scrawny ass have fared trying to guard Shaq? Also, even though he was old when Hakeem came in, didn't Hakeem own him? Personally I think Kareem was a little overrated.

[A.H 21-50]

D-Rob was always my favorite player

We will never know what he could have do with a better team when he was in his 20's

[Bob Lanier]

Uh, you guys do know that everyone that has played with Shaq, LOVED playing with him. Unlike Kobe...
If the best player he's ever played with is an exception, how can that even remotely be true?

[Bob Lanier]

Poor mans Dirk?
With the ball in his hands in a halfcourt set, yes, I don't think that's an unfair comparison. He didn't have Dirk's range or his mental toughness. He was substantially quicker and got more points in transition, though.

[stretch]

Uh, you guys do know that everyone that has played with Shaq, LOVED playing with him. Unlike Kobe...

Uh, you must not have done your research. Why is it that every team he destroyed, he was called out for the same reasons by his best teammate (Penny, Kobe, Wade) for being fat, lazy, and not committed to winning? I would rather play with a jerk who is at least working their ass off to win, as opposed to someone who refuses to get surgery in the offseason to come back as healthy as possible because he "got injured on company time thus should have to have surgery on company time as well". what a bitch. fuck shaq. the ONLY reason i want the Lakers to win it all is so they and Kobe can send a big "FUCK YOU" to Shaq, proving they could win without his fat ass, while he needed referees and Dwayne Wade to carry his lazy ass to a championship he didnt deserve.

[cornbread]

Shaq over David except for the very last of the twilight years.

[Bob Lanier]

[Wilt and Russell] arent [better than David Robinson].

Thats my point. There weren't any "freak of an athlete" type players back then, whereas today, the league is LOADED with athleticism

Only cuz he played in like a 10 team league full of unathletic white guys. And how many 7 footers did he have to combat? the biggest, baddest guy he had to face was Bill Russell, who was barely 6'9, and often times would give him the business. Wilt was a nice player, but would get murdered by guys like Hakeem, or Shaq.
many players who are [athletically] superior to Wilt, such as Dwight Howard.

Give me Duncan any day [over Wilt].

How would his scrawny ass have fared trying to guard Shaq? Also, even though he was old when Hakeem came in, didn't Hakeem own him? Personally I think Kareem was a little overrated.
Look, I realize your team didn't exist until the 80s and most of its fans probably didn't arrive until the Cuban era, but that's really no excuse for blithe ignorance. If you don't know what you're talking about - and if you're going to say Dwight Howard is a superior athlete to Wilt Chamberlain, or that Shaq is a better player than Kareem, I somehow doubt you watched two of those men play - really, why say anything?


Wilt is massively overrated by his inflated stats.
This is true, but it does not justify any of your other statements.

[DazedAndConfused]

How would his scrawny ass have fared trying to guard Shaq? Also, even though he was old when Hakeem came in, didn't Hakeem own him? Personally I think Kareem was a little overrated.

Nobody in the history of the NBA could have stopped a prime Shaq.

[baseline bum]

How would his scrawny ass have fared trying to guard Shaq? Also, even though he was old when Hakeem came in, didn't Hakeem own him? Personally I think Kareem was a little overrated.

Abdul-Jabbar was a pretty sick athlete, and he was Finals MVP at 38 years old. Kareem might be the most underrated player in NBA history, simply because he was an asshole who everyone hated. You're never going to see another player come in and dominate for the first 18 years of his career like he did. By his 20th year in the league, he was still at worst the 3rd or 4th best center.

[Cry Havoc]

Nobody in the history of the NBA could have stopped a prime Shaq.

Yep. It's hard to stop a 320 pound center who's allowed to completely obliterate you with his elbow and hips, wait for you to fall down, and then dunk over you.

I agree. Unstoppable.

[mavs>spurs2]

Look, I realize your team didn't exist until the 80s and most of its fans probably didn't arrive until the Cuban era, but that's really no excuse for blithe ignorance. If you don't know what you're talking about - and if you're going to say Dwight Howard is a superior athlete to Wilt Chamberlain, or that Shaq is a better player than Kareem, I somehow doubt you watched two of those men play - really, why say anything?


This is true, but it does not justify any of your other statements.

:lol You seriously think Kareem could stop Shaq in the post? He's giving up about 100 pounds, not to mention Shaq is 10 times stronger. If no one could touch Shaq in his prime, why would skinny Kareem do any better?

[stretch]

Look, I realize your team didn't exist until the 80s and most of its fans probably didn't arrive until the Cuban era, but that's really no excuse for blithe ignorance. If you don't know what you're talking about - and if you're going to say Dwight Howard is a superior athlete to Wilt Chamberlain, or that Shaq is a better player than Kareem, I somehow doubt you watched two of those men play - really, why say anything?

When did I say Shaq is a better player than Kareem? I just said I think Kareem is a tad overrated by some people. and I think Hakeem is the best all-around center of all time.

And if you are going to say Wilt is hands down the superior athlete to Dwight Howard (which is what you seem to be implying), I somehow doubt you know what the fuck you are talking about - really, why say anything?

[stretch]

Yep. It's hard to stop a 320 pound center who's allowed to completely obliterate you with his elbow and hips, wait for you to fall down, and then dunk over you.

I agree. Unstoppable.

Kinda like Duncan uses his hand to hold people down at their waists to get easy shot blocks, or Parker pushing off when he drives, after already getting away with traveling. Everyone has their dirty tricks they get away with. It's part of the game.

[balli]

I haven't read a single post, because it's a ridiculous question.

Shaq. In both cases. No Debate.

[LakeShow]

Who would you rather have on you're team and who do you think is a better player overall?\

Is this a trick question? It has to be because there is no comparison with these two. Shaq, without a doubt!

[mardigan]

D-Rob is one of my favorite players of all time, but its not even close. Shaq by a mile.

[Cry Havoc]

Kinda like Duncan uses his hand to hold people down at their waists to get easy shot blocks, or Parker pushing off when he drives, after already getting away with traveling. Everyone has their dirty tricks they get away with. It's part of the game.

That's like saying poking someone in the eye is equivalent to running them over with a MAC truck. But yeah, I see your point. :rolleyes

[stretch]

That's like saying poking someone in the eye is equivalent to running them over with a MAC truck. But yeah, I see your point. :rolleyes

Indeed. Only its sports we are talking about. Not gouging people's eyes out and running them over with trucks.

Fail, motherfucker.

[DDS4]

I love DRob to death but Shaq in his prime was unstoppable.

Plus the fact refs didn't know how to call calls vs./against Shaq because he was so dominant.

[Mr. Peabody]

I'm a die-hard Spurs fan and think DRob is a great center, but he was never close to being as dominant as Shaq was in his prime. The fact that Shaq only won one MVP is a travesty. The guy dominated the league between 1993 and 2004.

The only thing that kept Shaq from being the most dominant player is league history was the fact that he is too lazy. Had he worked harder and cared more, the guy would have had 8 rings by now.

[SRJ]

First of all, understand this about Wilt. Athletically, he compares favorably to any players in NBA history. His strength was at least equal to Shaq's and his vertical was even better than Dwight Howard's. If he came along today, he'd average 30-32 ppg in his peak seasons and 26-28 for a career, with rebounds in the 15-16 peak range and a career of about 12. And blocked shots? One statisitician of Wilt's day estimated that Wilt averaged about 5.5 for his career (they weren't kept officially in Wilt's day), so in today's game Wilt would probably average 3-3.5 for a career, which is outstanding. Anecdotally, Earl Strom believed Chamberlain and Russell were averaging 8-10 blocks for most of their careers.

Now for the topic at hand, I would have to give it to Shaq by a slight edge, but keep in mind that Shaq has ALWAYS had a top three (Kobe), top five (Wade), or top ten (pre-injury Penny Hardaway) running mate playing with him. During D-Rob's peak years, his best running mate was Sean Elliott who was at most a top 20-25 player. From 1990-96, playoff defenses had few other worries than David Robinson. Also, Shaq had better coaching staffs in his best years compared with D-Rob.

[stretch]

First of all, understand this about Wilt. Athletically, he compares favorably to any players in NBA history. His strength was at least equal to Shaq's and his vertical was even better than Dwight Howard's.

Only looked like that because he was rebounding, pushing around, and dunking on a bunch of extremely unathletic white dudes who he dwarfed in height and size. I'd put money on it that Shaq in his prime could have a 100 point game if you stuck him in the 60s NBA.

[Spurs da champs]

Really after reading some bull **** replies it's obvious david robinson is the most underrated great center of all time, This guy could play great defense,was a scoring champion (he beat shaq for the scoring title),and a mvp. Shaq O'Neal is just a big ass wall that can dunk,David was balanced he could score and play deffense,So far from what I've seen from some clips of shaq and games from his prime he was a offensive threat thats all. David a threat on defense and offense.
I'd rather have The Admrial.

[dallaskd]

Shaq Diesel!

well the '02 shaq

[dallaskd]

Robinson losing on a spurs board. wow

[stretch]

I think Robinson was a more well rounded player, and thus I voted for him, as the poll asked who is better "overall". But Shaq was more dominant.

[Cry Havoc]

Only looked like that because he was rebounding, pushing around, and dunking on a bunch of extremely unathletic white dudes who he dwarfed in height and size. I'd put money on it that Shaq in his prime could have a 100 point game if you stuck him in the 60s NBA.

Where as, David only scored 71 points in a game in the modern era. I guess that means he wouldn't have dominated back then at all.


Indeed. Only its sports we are talking about. Not gouging people's eyes out and running them over with trucks.

Fail, motherfucker.

You just compared grabbing someone's arm to completely running them over and removing them from the play. They are not equal, and my analogy was attempting to illustrate a similar difference between two aggressive acts. I'm sorry it was too difficult for you to relate the two. I'll make a simpler reference next time. :toast

[Spurminator]

I'm a die-hard Spurs fan and think DRob is a great center, but he was never close to being as dominant as Shaq was in his prime. The fact that Shaq only won one MVP is a travesty. The guy dominated the league between 1993 and 2004.

The only thing that kept Shaq from being the most dominant player is league history was the fact that he is too lazy. Had he worked harder and cared more, the guy would have had 8 rings by now.

Shaq won only one MVP because of that laziness, so I don't see it as a travesty. In the late 90's he was constantly overweight and missed a lot of games. He finally got his act together in 2000 and had one of the best seasons for any player ever. But I can't think of one MVP that he was robbed of.

[resistanze]

Shaq won only one MVP because of that laziness, so I don't see it as a travesty. In the late 90's he was constantly overweight and missed a lot of games. He finally got his act together in 2000 and had one of the best seasons for any player ever. But I can't think of one MVP that he was robbed of.
Many people consider the Iverson MVP back in '01 robbery of Shaq (I don't really agree with that).

But I'll never fully be right with Steve Nash winning 2 MVPs (back-to-back for that matter) and Shaq having one.

[21_Blessings]

Only cuz he played in like a 10 team league full of unathletic white guys. And how many 7 footers did he have to combat? the biggest, baddest guy he had to face was Bill Russell, who was barely 6'9, and often times would give him the business. Wilt was a nice player, but would get murdered by guys like Hakeem, or Shaq.

Wilt is massively overrated by his inflated stats.

Most idiotic post of all time.

[stretch]

Where as, David only scored 71 points in a game in the modern era. I guess that means he wouldn't have dominated back then at all.

:wtf

I never said anything about David Robinson not being able to dominate back then. My use of Shaq in the Wilt discussion had NOTHING to do with D-Rob, and I'm very sure Robinson could have scored a 100 point game as well, although lets be fair, his 71 point game came in a rather non-competitive game. Kobe's 62 against the Mavs, or T-Mac's 60-something point game a few years back, Lebron's 48 against Detroit in game 5 last year, and Dirk/T-Mac's 53/48 point shootout were all FAR more impressive because they were earned in a different manner, and their teams needed those points to win their games. Robinson's game was meaningless, and at the end of the season, where teammates were just feeding him the ball to get that scoring title. Nice performance, but still a meaningless game.


You just compared grabbing someone's arm to completely running them over and removing them from the play. They are not equal, and my analogy was attempting to illustrate a similar difference between two aggressive acts. I'm sorry it was too difficult for you to relate the two. I'll make a simpler reference next time. :toast

I'm sorry that you are too defensive of your little Spurs to realize that a foul is a foul, no matter how big or small. I'm sorry that you can't accept the concept that all players do little things that bend the rules, and even break them, but do them in such a smart, subtle manner that they can get away with it. I'm sorry that you get all butthurt over me not mentioning D-Rob when making a comparison between Wilt and Shaq, which had nothing to do with D-Rob in the first place.

Do us all a favor, and before the next time you talk basketball, kindly unfuck yourself.

[stretch]

Most idiotic post of all time.

Most idiotic poster of all time. I can't wait to see your stupid ass get banned after the playoffs.

[stretch]

But I'll never fully be right with Steve Nash winning 2 MVPs (back-to-back for that matter) and Shaq having one.

I really don't see the problem with that. Nash absolutely deserved his first one. And the second one I think was very deserved too, the more i look at it. He lost Amare for the year, and still led the team to win their division, had even better stats than the year before, and people still looked at them as title contenders, despite not having Amare (their biggest scorer and Nash's #2 guy). They finished with the 3rd best record in the West as well. That's quite impressive for someone who lost his #2 option, as well as an extreme talent in Joe Johnson to free agency.

The only other guy that was in the discussion was Kobe. He had fantastic scoring stats. But he BARELY made the playoffs. And while people say this shouldn't factor into the MVP discussion, I think it should really just prove and solidify Nash's MVP, that he beat Kobe head to head in the playoffs. Besides, how often does the leader of a team that gets a #7 seed win MVP?

[resistanze]

I really don't see the problem with that. Nash absolutely deserved his first one. And the second one I think was very deserved too, the more i look at it. He lost Amare for the year, and still led the team to win their division, had even better stats than the year before, and people still looked at them as title contenders, despite not having Amare (their biggest scorer and Nash's #2 guy). They finished with the 3rd best record in the West as well. That's quite impressive for someone who lost his #2 option, as well as an extreme talent in Joe Johnson to free agency.

The only other guy that was in the discussion was Kobe. He had fantastic scoring stats. But he BARELY made the playoffs. And while people say this shouldn't factor into the MVP discussion, I think it should really just prove and solidify Nash's MVP, that he beat Kobe head to head in the playoffs. Besides, how often does the leader of a team that gets a #7 seed win MVP?

The first MVP I had no problem with, since to me it was between Nash and Shaq, even though Nash's impact of their turnaround was exaggerated.

The reasoning for the second MVP makes no sense to me and isn't consistent with past awards. In his first MVP, Nash is responsible for making all his teammates better, and was basically given all the credit for the performances of his teammates, including Amare. All of a sudden Amare goes down and Nash is credited for succeeding despite Amare? In the first case he won because they had a big turnaround, the second case they gave it to him because "well...you didn't do as bad as we expected, you only lost 8 more games than last year" which is a weak reason to give an MVP, especially for a back-to-back. In that case, Pippen should've destroyed Hakeem and D-Rob in MVP voting when Jordan retired.

There were several people in the 2006 MVP debate; Nash, Kobe, Dirk, Billups, and LeBron - who should've won. Leading the Cavs to a 50-win season averaging something like 32/7/7; if that can't get you an MVP, I don't know what can. Ironically, people said this year he couldn't win MVP unless his team got to 50 wins. Hell, I would've picked Dirk over Nash in that year, he was better than he was in the year he actually won MVP.

[101A]

If you could transplant David Robinson's brain and put it in Shaq's freakish body Shaq would've been the undisputed best big man to ever play the game. His Lack professionalism and dedication to his craft prevented him from being the greatest center of all time! He still managed to win 4 rings. Scary thought of what could've been!

David's body was as freakish as Shaq's - just different. What he could do in a frame that long was unbelievable. Shaq had Hurcule's body; David had God's.

Neither David or Shaq, IMO, lived up to their PHYSICAL potential. Put Manu's, or Avery's mind in either of those bodies, and you have THE GOAT.

[101A]

Shaq won only one MVP because of that laziness, so I don't see it as a travesty. In the late 90's he was constantly overweight and missed a lot of games. He finally got his act together in 2000 and had one of the best seasons for any player ever. But I can't think of one MVP that he was robbed of.

Compare David's '93 season to Shaq's '00; the numbers are almost identical.

[O-Factor]

Robinson...I hate Shaq too much.

Plus Robinson could of won with the casts in LA and Miami.

[mavs>spurs2]

Somewhere Shaq is reading this thread and getting pissed. :lol Didn't he used to hate David Robinson?

[O-Factor]

Somewhere Shaq is reading this thread and getting pissed. :lol Didn't he used to hate David Robinson?

yeah, apparently David didn't give him an autograph when Shaq was a little big fat kid or something and that pissed him off for life.

[MateoNeygro]

With the ball in his hands in a halfcourt set, yes, I don't think that's an unfair comparison. He didn't have Dirk's range or his mental toughness. He was substantially quicker and got more points in transition, though.

Dave didn't have Dirk's range but he was definently more mentally tough than fuckin Dirk, Dirk was up 0-2 on Miami and didn't have enough to beat them. So thats bullshit, and Dirk played with Steve Nash and Michael Finley in his prime. People comparing Dirk and Dave are way off Dave played outstanding defense.

[JamStone]

David Robinson had a freakish upper body. He was light in the thighs and legs. Shaq has thickness and strength in his lower core. This allowed David Robinson to be great at running up and down the court for a big man, but didn't allow him to be a force down low. He was light in the ass.

I don't think David Robinson and Shaquille O'Neal had similar physiques at all.

Shaq was the better center because he was dominant scoring in the post. Robinson was definitely a better defender. But, Shaq's defense isn't as bad as David Robinson's low post offense.

Shaq was the better center.

[MateoNeygro]

:wtf

I never said anything about David Robinson not being able to dominate back then. My use of Shaq in the Wilt discussion had NOTHING to do with D-Rob, and I'm very sure Robinson could have scored a 100 point game as well, although lets be fair, his 71 point game came in a rather non-competitive game. Kobe's 62 against the Mavs, or T-Mac's 60-something point game a few years back, Lebron's 48 against Detroit in game 5 last year, and Dirk/T-Mac's 53/48 point shootout were all FAR more impressive because they were earned in a different manner, and their teams needed those points to win their games. Robinson's game was meaningless, and at the end of the season, where teammates were just feeding him the ball to get that scoring title. Nice performance, but still a meaningless game.


yourself.

THATS SOME MADE UP BIASED BULLSHIT- I BET YOU COULDN'T EVEN NAME THE TEAM HE DID IT AGAINST... JACKASS