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

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.

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

Dwight:
strength

I'd give it to Robinson in his prime.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

DRob had offensive skills.

Howard is still trying to develop some.

Howard is a better athlete

Robinson is a better jumpshooter

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

Ummmm neither.

Wilt Chamberlain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stretch

Howard is a better athlete

Robinson is a better jumpshooter

---

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

Ummmm neither.

Wilt Chamberlain.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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 .....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2Cleva

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

Some fans need to know the history of the game.

---

lol wikipedia

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

Ummmm neither.

Wilt Chamberlain.

---

Absolutely right.

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

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.

Wilt...

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamStone

Ummmm neither.

Wilt Chamberlain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2Cleva

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

Some fans need to know the history of the game.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigfan

Absolutely right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phila_Chamberlain

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

"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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phila_Chamberlain

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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/p...lkid=ChambWi01

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Easily David

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stretch

lol wikipedia

---

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phila_Chamberlain

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.

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.

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

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

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

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.

David.




Next.

:cooldevil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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

---

Or this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phila_Chamberlain

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/n...andingjump.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phila_Chamberlain

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phila_Chamberlain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

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...

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lakaluva

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phila_Chamberlain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

David Robinson played no highschool basketball.

I repeat, the man played no highschool basketball.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20123903,00.html

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

*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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Two words...

Off
Season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Two words...

Off
Season.

---

For what, the National Arithmetic Association?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4down

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.