Duncan>Hakeem.

[JamStone]

Since when are you a height regulator? I've never heard of either of these players being this short. The only player in recent years that I know of lying about height is Iverson(they say he isn't even quite 6ft) and Barkely(supposedly 6ft 4)

It's pretty much customary for a lot of NBA players to exaggerate their heights. In fact, when Ben Wallace was first with the Washington Bullets, he was listed at 6-foot-7. When he first joined the Detroit Pistons, he was initially listed at 6-foot-8. And, as was mentioned before in this thread, in the days of Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell, players' heights were measured barefoot. Nowadays, players add an inch to two inches because they are measured with shoes. That does give some discrepancy to the height differences of the eras.

Not all players today lift weights. Some of it is just genetics. Tony Parker is on record saying he hates lifting and doesn't do it often. As far as athleticism goes, youtube Bill and Wilt and see how many spectacular dunks and athletic moves you see.

We're talking about big men, and use a quick little point guard for an example of modern NBA players not lifting weights??? The overwhelming majority of centers and power forwards in today's game lift weights. Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain in today's game would lift weights. You gotta be kidding to even suggest they wouldn't.

Are youtube highlights the end-all be-all now? Because I can youtube Jack and he probably has some pretty impressive basketball highlights that would make a person wonder why he's not an NBA player. Youtube highlights? You're serious? That's how you're going to support a point? Wilt Chamberlain had a 48 inch vertical jump. And, I've read stories that stated he had remarkable quickness for his size. And Bill Russell was said to have some of the greatest quickness and agility for a big man in the history of the game. You are making conjectured assumptions on their athletic ability based on how you think things are and were.

Since we're playing the height regulator game, Willis Reed was listed 6ft10 but is rumored to have only been 6ft 8-9. Elvin Hayes was only listed 6ft 9 but was really about 6ft 8. Wes Unseld was listed as 6ft 7. Half of your list is just full of . And these are just a few players spanning a whole decade. The average for centers of that time was about 6ft7, maybe 6ft 8, the size of a big swingman in todays league, not a center. I don't know where you got anything about 6ft 4.

Half of my list was ??? My entire list was of players that played when Wilt and Russell did and were legitimate big men with legitimate 6-10 height. Just because they prove your theory wrong, it doesn'mt make them . LMAO! Sad really. You made it seem like Bill And Wilt only played against 6-foot-4 to 6-foot-7 centers. That's not true. It's not even remotely true. Just because you don't know some of those players, it doesn't mean they didn't exist. 30 years from now, who's going to remember Erick Dampier or Mark Blount or Joel Przybilla or Zydrunas Ilgauskas? They won't. And, some idiot like you who doesn't really know his NBA history is going to say: "Shaq never played against tough 7-footers in his career except for Hakeem and Yao Ming. Centers were all 6-9 midgets like Ben Wallace and Amare Stoudemire."

Bill Russell would have a hard time defending Duncan or Garnett, giving up 2-3 inches and 40 something pounds. Not to mention he couldn't leap with the guys like Amare, and shot blocking was a big part of his game.

Bill Russell would be closer to 240 in today's NBA. He'd also be similar to a Ben Wallace type of player that uses a blend of quickness and agility as well as positioning, timing, and technique to be a superstar defender. You see that? That's conjecture just like you did. I can do the same thing. You don't know that Bill Russell wouldn't be effective in today's NBA. Why couldn't he be like Ben Wallace on defense with that height? Why couldn't he be like Marcus Camby with that weight? Your conjecture has no legitimate evidential support to it.

Wrong

Amare Stoudemire is not really 6-10. He just isn't. Sorry to burst your bubble.

That's something that you will never know for sure, but I think I did at least exagerrate a little when I said they would struggle to be role players. IMO they would probably be borderline all-stars, not superstars and definately not scoring 100 points in a game.

A 7-foot-1, 275 pound beast with a 48 inch vertical and surprisingly great quickness for his size would not be a superstar in this league? Yeah ... ok. And, Bill Russell would be bigger and stronger. I think he could have been every bit the player Ben Wallace is on defense but with better offense. Ben Wallace is a four time DPOY, an NBA champ, two time rebounding champ, and multiple all Defense and all NBA performer. But, Bill Russell would not be a superstar either.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that your opinion sucks ass.

[mavs>spurs2]

Jamstone, I almost don't even want to respond to that bull . If you want to show some proof, maybe a link that Wilt had a 48 inch vertical then go ahead and prove me wrong. And several players on your list were actually below 6ft 10, according to NBA.com, regardless what you want to think. Do you have proof that players are measured with their shoes on now and were barefoot back then? Bill Russell WOULD be bigger and stronger today? What good are would should and could? Give me some damn proof, so far all you have done is talk out of your ass and state some outlandish opinions.

[mavs>spurs2]

For god sakes I dont even think Vince Carter had a 48 inch vertical pre injury. You really exaggerated on that one.

A 48 inch vertical at over 7 ft tall would mean he could probably get his entire upper body above the rim. I'm not buying it.

[mavs>spurs2]

Not to mention Wilt couldn't use his left hand well at all. Can you imagine a player in today's league that couldn't even finish with his left?

[JamStone]

I don't know where they keep vertical jump measurements ... If you want to find me any proof that he didn't have a 48 inch vertical, you really can't say otherwise. These aren't NBA archive sources, but here's what I found:


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0150219/bio

"At his athletic peak, he was said to have been measured with a vertical jump of 48-50 inches."

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

* "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." [Source: The Leaping Legends of Basketball, The Los Angeles Times; Feb 12, 1989; Scott Ostler]

* Wilt Chamberlain claims that his sergeant, during his prime, was "46 to 48 inches, easy." [Source: The Leaping Legends of Basketball, The Los Angeles Times; Feb 12, 1989; Scott Ostler]



That's Wilt's quote. Take it how you want to take it. But, how about you give some proof that states otherwise.

[JamStone]

Not to mention Wilt couldn't use his left hand well at all. Can you imagine a player in today's league that couldn't even finish with his left?

And, how good is Shaq's left hand? How good does it need to be when he is stronger than all of his opponents and can move them out of the way and use his right hand?

[mavs>spurs2]

I don't know where they keep vertical jump measurements ... If you want to find me any proof that he didn't have a 48 inch vertical, you really can't say otherwise. These aren't NBA archive sources, but here's what I found:


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0150219/bio

"At his athletic peak, he was said to have been measured with a vertical jump of 48-50 inches."

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

* "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." [Source: The Leaping Legends of Basketball, The Los Angeles Times; Feb 12, 1989; Scott Ostler]

* Wilt Chamberlain claims that his sergeant, during his prime, was "46 to 48 inches, easy." [Source: The Leaping Legends of Basketball, The Los Angeles Times; Feb 12, 1989; Scott Ostler]



That's Wilt's quote. Take it how you want to take it. But, how about you give some proof that states otherwise.

I can dunk a 10ft 4 inch goal up at the park, and its double rimmed so it makes it harder. Im only 5ft 11, so you tell me which is more impressive. And I don't have a 50 inch vertical. Im just not buying that he was taller than vince, had a better vert, but wasn't an impressive dunker. Gonna have to give some proof if you want that to stick.

[JamStone]

Jamstone, I almost don't even want to respond to that bull . If you want to show some proof, maybe a link that Wilt had a 48 inch vertical then go ahead and prove me wrong. And several players on your list were actually below 6ft 10, according to NBA.com, regardless what you want to think. Do you have proof that players are measured with their shoes on now and were barefoot back then? Bill Russell WOULD be bigger and stronger today? What good are would should and could? Give me some damn proof, so far all you have done is talk out of your ass and state some outlandish opinions.

Like who?

I already stated that Wes Unseld, Jerry Lucas, and Connie Hawkins weren't tall. But, they were undersized hall of fame type of big men in Bill's and Wilt's day.

Who else on the list wasn't at least 6-10?

No, I don't have proof that players back then were measured barefoot. Do you have proof that they weren't?

Thing is, whatever you call your opinion as proof, it's conjecture as well.

So, perhaps some of those guys were 6-foot-9 1/2 and not 6-10. I remember watching Howard Stern years ago and Shaquille O'Neal stating that he was really only 6-foot-11. Hakeem was said to only be 6-foot-10.

I listed a bunch of players in Bill's and Wilt's era that were big men of similar size, and were not that 6-foot-7 average you were talking about earlier. Sure, there were some small centers back then. Yes, more so than now. But, big men were not nearly as small throughout the league as you made it appear. Wilt and Bill battled legitimate 6-foot-10 and 6-foot-11 players. Not every night. But, they did.

And, again, it just goes to show how much of an exaggeration you made in trying to make your argument appear stronger than it was.

Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain would have been superstars in any era.

[mavs>spurs2]

And, how good is Shaq's left hand? How good does it need to be when he is stronger than all of his opponents and can move them out of the way and use his right hand?

Did you just accidently describe Wilt?

Yea and if Shaq had impressive skill to go along with his size, he wouldn't have gotten owned so bad by Hakeem.

[mavs>spurs2]

Like who?

I already stated that Wes Unseld, Jerry Lucas, and Connie Hawkins weren't tall. But, they were undersized hall of fame type of big men in Bill's and Wilt's day.

Who else on the list wasn't at least 6-10?

No, I don't have proof that players back then were measured barefoot. Do you have proof that they weren't?

Thing is, whatever you call your opinion as proof, it's conjecture as well.

So, perhaps some of those guys were 6-foot-9 1/2 and not 6-10. I remember watching Howard Stern years ago and Shaquille O'Neal stating that he was really only 6-foot-11. Hakeem was said to only be 6-foot-10.

I listed a bunch of players in Bill's and Wilt's era that were big men of similar size, and were not that 6-foot-7 average you were talking about earlier. Sure, there were some small centers back then. Yes, more so than now. But, big men were not nearly as small throughout the league as you made it appear. Wilt and Bill battled legitimate 6-foot-10 and 6-foot-11 players. Not every night. But, they did.

And, again, it just goes to show how much of an exaggeration you made in trying to make your argument appear stronger than it was.
Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain would have been superstars in any era.

You are the one trying to exaggerate to make your arguement, claiming every player today is actually smaller than what they are listed as and also wear shoes as opposed to back then. GTFO of here with that bull and come back with a real arguement.

Yea and I just double checked, 3 players on your list of "6ft10 and up centers from Wilts era" were actually 6ft 9 and under. You are full of .

[JamStone]

I can dunk a 10ft 4 inch goal up at the park, and its double rimmed so it makes it harder. Im only 5ft 11, so you tell me which is more impressive. And I don't have a 50 inch vertical. Im just not buying that he was taller than vince, had a better vert, but wasn't an impressive dunker. Gonna have to give some proof if you want that to stick.

Just provide proof to the contrary that Wilt had a 48 inch vertical, and you win the argument.

I provided something at least.

[JamStone]

Did you just accidently describe Wilt?

Yea and if Shaq had impressive skill to go along with his size, he wouldn't have gotten owned so bad by Hakeem.

I'm sorry. Has Shaq not been a superstar? Is that your next asinine contention?

[mavs>spurs2]

Just provide proof to the contrary that Wilt had a 48 inch vertical, and you win the argument.

I provided something at least.

LMAO when I go up to the gym and play and all the black guys freak out to see a short white guy dunk, I could easily lie and say my vert is 40 inches when they ask. When in reality its like 34-35. Just because Wilt ''says'' he has a 50 inch vertical doesn't make it true. YOU are the one that can't back up your statements, it's not up to me to prove otherwise. There is nothing on the internet I can find that will say "Wilt Chamberlain is a liar he didnt have a 50 inch vert." For all you know its just a myth.

[mavs>spurs2]

I'm sorry. Has Shaq not been a superstar? Is that your next asinine contention?

Of course Shaq is a superstar, alot of superstars got owned by Hakeem in his prime. Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, among others.

Putting words in my mouth isn't going to help you win this arguement.

[JamStone]

You are the one trying to exaggerate to make your arguement, claiming every player today is actually smaller than what they are listed as and also wear shoes as opposed to back then. GTFO of here with that bull and come back with a real arguement.

Yea and I just double checked, 3 players on your list of "6ft10 and up centers from Wilts era" were actually 6ft 9 and under. You are full of .

Which ones and what were they listed as?

[mavs>spurs2]

Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier, Elmore Smith, Otto Moore, Sam Lacey, Leroy Ellis, Darrall Tucker. All those guys played in Wilt and Russell's era and were 6-10 to 7-feet tall

Willis Reed was listed as 6ft 9, but I have heard otherwise that he was actually 6ft 7-8. But ill go ahead and give you 6ft9, it doesnt matter. Wes Unseld was only 6ft 7. And ill have to go back and research to find the last, feel free to do it yourself.

[JamStone]

LMAO when I go up to the gym and play and all the black guys freak out to see a short white guy dunk, I could easily lie and say my vert is 40 inches when they ask. When in reality its like 34-35. Just because Wilt ''says'' he has a 50 inch vertical doesn't make it true. YOU are the one that can't back up your statements, it's not up to me to prove otherwise. There is nothing on the internet I can find that will say "Wilt Chamberlain is a liar he didnt have a 50 inch vert." For all you know its just a myth.

No, it means you can't provide proof that Wilt didn't have a 48 inch vertical.

And, what if it were 45 inches? What then? Your original point was that Wilt and Russell weren't athletic enough to be superstars in today's NBA. You arguing over that Wilt's vertical wasn't actually 48 or 50 inches only demonstrates how you are now forced to argue that Wilt wasn't an unbelievably amazing athlete, but only really amazing.

You're not arguing that Wilt had a 20 inch vertical. You're arguing he didn't have a 50 inch vertical. At any rate, even if exaggerated, Wilt must have been pretty ing impressive with his vertical. That still goes to refute your notion that he wasn't athletic enough to play in today's NBA.

[mavs>spurs2]

No, it means you can't provide proof that Wilt didn't have a 48 inch vertical.

And, what if it were 45 inches? What then? Your original point was that Wilt and Russell weren't athletic enough to be superstars in today's NBA. You arguing over that Wilt's vertical wasn't actually 48 or 50 inches only demonstrates how you are now forced to argue that Wilt wasn't an unbelievably amazing athlete, but only really amazing.

You're not arguing that Wilt had a 20 inch vertical. You're arguing he didn't have a 50 inch vertical. At any rate, even if exaggerated, Wilt must have been pretty ing impressive with his vertical. That still goes to refute your notion that he wasn't athletic enough to play in today's NBA.

Do you always twist the arguement when you are losing to save face? I don't know what his exact vertical was, but if you want to say that it was 50 then prove it. VC's vert isn't even that high, and he can get damn near his whole upper body above the rim. Show me a picture of Wilt anywhere near head and shoulders above the rim.

And for the record, I never said he wouldn't be athletic enough to play in today's league. I said that he wouldn't be able to just tower over and overpower everyone in his way like he did in those days. His athleticism was well ahead of its time and was the reason he could do the things he did. In today's league where everyone is just as athletic if not more than he was and not to mention as big and strong as him, he wouldn't succeed with his skillset.

[mavs>spurs2]

You must be some sort of old timer who grew up watching these guys and still idolizes them. I've seen all sort of old clips of Wilt play and you cannot convince me that he is anything special compared to todays players. He might, a big might, be an all star type player but not a 50ppg scorer.

[spursfan09]

[QUOTE=bobbyjoe]This is just absurd. There's not one coach in the history of basketball who will say "sure, let's the other team's best big man get 38 ppg, no biggie".



QUOTE]


yeah thats exactly how coach pop said it.

It was well known that the Spurs were going to let Amare get his, becuase they knew they couldn't really handle him the best. I'm not trying to give the credit to only Tim Duncan. Manu and Tony and Bruce were great as well. It does take a team to win. Also Tim was playing on 2 very hurt ankles, so ofcourse Amare was at an advantage, because he was way more athletic than Tim Duncan. Doesn't mean hes a better player than him.

[JamStone]

Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier, Elmore Smith, Otto Moore, Sam Lacey, Leroy Ellis, Darrall Tucker. All those guys played in Wilt and Russell's era and were 6-10 to 7-feet tall

Willis Reed is listed at 6-9.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../reedwi01.html

Walt Bellamy listed at 6-11.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...bellawa01.html

Elvin Hayes listed at 6-9.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...hayesel01.html

I already said Wes Unseld was undersized.

Nate Thurmond listed at 6-11.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...thurmna01.html

Bob Lanier listed at 6-11.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...laniebo01.html

Elmore Smith listed at 7-0.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...smithel01.html

Otto Moore listed at 6-11.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...mooreot01.html

Sam Lacey listed at 6-10.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...laceysa01.html

Leroy Ellis listed at 6-10.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ellisle01.html

Darrall Tucker ... sorry mistyped, meant Darrall Imhoff, listed at 6-10.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...imhofda01.html



Go ahead, check them all. The two guys that missed the cut are Elvin Hayes and Willis Reed, hall of fame big men. LMAO. Oh shoot, I missed those two by inch. Sorry.

[mavs>spurs2]

You missed hayes by an inch too. And you initially had Unseld on your list of 6ft10 and up big men, and later went back and said differently.

[mavs>spurs2]

So in total, 4 of the 11 on your list were wrong. No big deal, but just more proof that you were talking out of your ass.

[gtownspur]

Without the jordan bulls, hakeem would have won 2 les still. To even put a what if on that, you would have had to have the rockets meet the bulls in the finals, but that didn't happen.

And anybody who compares shaq in his 2nd year to his prime is pathological liar like bobby joe.

Shaq in his 2nd year matched hakeems numbers head to head, Shaq in 01 would have dominated Da Dream.



And if you want to compare Defensive player of the year award, to Defensive team accomoplishments, just remember one thing, Marcus Camby, and the simple fact that the media gets to decide one of those awards.

Duncan has gotten credit from the coaches from day one.

Olajuwon was given credit from the media.

Nevermind Houston has a large market.

[mavs>spurs2]

Yea but let's not forget that Shaq's dominance came after Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing all retired or got old. Whether or not you believe that had something to do with it, or if Shaq just got that much better is a matter of personal opinion, there's no way to tell for sure. Shaq is the last of a dying breed, there are no great centers to matchup with him today. Now days all the best big men are power forwards. Duncan, KG, Amare, just to name a few.