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

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.