I guess you didn't like the pposturing comment. I was just talking about your lol and blanket dismissals. You also are just repeating yourself. Alcindor lost the head to head for all of your ty excuses and then proceeded to not won anything for 9 years. That wsn't even the finals anyway.I'm not citing them, it's simply proof that your argument was invalid. It's relevant because they aren't Lakerfans, they are rivalfans, and still don't put Wilt or Russel up there. You're reaching
Jabbar won 6, if you want to say he was carried to 5 of them get prepared to be laughed at. Wilt won 1 against a hurt team, it's not an excuse because win or lose it doesn't matter in this particular case. Wilt was utterly outplayed by Kareem, a recovering Kareem at that. Lakers won because they had more than just Wilt.
Sure he carried the Warriors, during the regular season. His stats, like I said, dipped in the playoffs.
NOBODY wins alone, Kareem needed Magic/Robertson like Wilt needed West/his whole 76er team. Pull up the boxscores for the series against the Celtics, show me how many times Wilt was the leading scorer
Why didn't you say posture again
I never said that Alcindor was carried. I said he was not ever able to carry a team. Big difference. That was exemplified by the droughtfor the prime of his career, pretty much a decade. He did not have the 60s celtics to deal with. Chamberlain was at least able to climb that mountain without a member of the 10 best all time as a side kick.
Then of course statistically it's not even close. It took jabbar 8 extra years to match wilt.
And of course Jabar was a works class known for cheap shots and running to the stands when faced with someone his own size. He broke his hand on a cheap shot.
On a final note, taking about other fans has nothing to do with your objectivity. It's the band wagon fallacy anyway. on the topic of objectivity did you ever find a major publication that had jabbar over chamberlain?
That most certainly was Galileo aka Rolf LindgrenWhere's that one who would always call him "Jaber" and talk about more outlandish myths than the Wilt ones? I'm talking "Jaber was the best athlete of all time, he was once the first black man to travel to another galaxy and become mvp of a league full of athletically engineered super aliens" etc
I can't remember which poster that was, was it Galileo?
Harlem?
I'll give you credit, you abandoned that stupid ass argument quick.
lmfao.
Magic is not #3, much less #2.
And he certainly didn't get his GOAT status set in stone that early in his career.
And nobody who has even the smallest amount of basketball intelligence ranks Bird that high.
Bird should not be ranked above: MJ, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Wilt. or Shaq. Imo, he's also ranked below Duncan.
Bird is at most #7 on the GOAT list. And he's he's #8 on mine.
Interchangable at #3? LOL. Instant credibility loss.
Kareem has been to the Finals twice without Magic (winning once). Magic has just once without Kareem (losing in a backdoor sweep). Kareem also has more MVPs. Magic's great, but he was also fortunate enough to never have a bad team around him at any point in his career, unlike Kareem. You have to also factor what the greats had around them, not just how many les they won. Magic was almost never at a disadvantage in terms of team talent vs his opponents. Have Magic's Lakers ever been worse than 3rd best team in the NBA? Seriously. At any point he was on that team besides his "comeback from AIDS retirement". Meanwhile, Kareem's been on several stinkers. Specifically because he wasn't drafted onto a golden team that was set to be good for a decade rather than just a couple years.
Kareem > Magic. Was more accomplished, has more records, was a more dominant force on BOTH ends rather than just one.
Last edited by Kidd K; 07-18-2012 at 12:54 AM.
Wilt had stretches of his career where he was more dominant as an individual player, but he did not have the better career and he was not a better winner. Kareem's career achievements easily surpass Wilt. Also of interest is that Kareem was the only player that Wilt ever said he needed double team help in guarding because he couldn't stop him.
Last edited by namlook; 07-16-2012 at 09:01 PM.
I didn't mind it, just sounded funny tbh. Kareem won head to head with Wilt in the playoffs, show me otherwise please. He outscored Wilt and kept him under 40% for much of the 72 series (shooting around 45% himself, IIRC). He was thoroughly dominated, but it just wasn't enough to win since games are decided on more than 1 player.
If we're speaking strickly playoffs, Kareem definitely carried his Bucks if you think Wilt was anywhere close to doing that during the playoffs. If you want to talk regular season, again, a weaker decade than the 70s. Not many people would disagree, tbh.
Weaker era, Wilt was just extraordinary athletic compared to all the other bigs. The closest matchup for him was Russel and his athleticism wasn't as impressive compared to the centers that came later on. Wilt, on the other hand, would still be considered an excellent athleted by today's standards - but his playstyle wouldn't allow him to drop 50 points a game when other centers had comparable athleticism
It's irrelevant what kind of person Kareem was, he shaped up after playing with Magic.
Publications are irrelevant, especially from Sl
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...reatestCenters
lmfao.
Magic is not #3, much less #2.
And he certainly didn't get his GOAT status set in stone that early in his career.
And nobody who has even the smallest amount of basketball intelligence ranks Bird that high.
Bird should not be ranked above: MJ, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Wilt. or Shaq. Imo, he's also ranked below Duncan.
Bird is at most #7 on the GOAT list. And he's he's #8 on mine.
Interchangable at #3? LOL. Instant credibility loss.
Kareem has 2 les without Magic. Magic has 1 without Kareem. Kareem also have more MVPs. Magic's great, but he was also fortunate enough to never have a bad team around him at any point in his career, unlike Kareem. You have to also factor what the greats had around them, not just how many les they won. Magic was almost never at a disadvantage in terms of team talent vs his opponents. Have Magic's Lakers ever been worse than 3rd best team in the NBA? Seriously. At any point he was on that team besides his "comeback from AIDS retirement". Meanwhile, Kareem's been on several stinkers. Specifically because he wasn't drafted onto a golden team that was set to be good for a decade rather than just a couple years.
Kareem > Magic. Was more accomplished, has more records, was a more dominant force on BOTH ends rather than just one.
Kareem had only won one championship (with the Bucks in 1972) without Magic. However Magic didn't win any without Kareem.lmfao.
Magic is not #3, much less #2.
And he certainly didn't get his GOAT status set in stone that early in his career.
And nobody who has even the smallest amount of basketball intelligence ranks Bird that high.
Bird should not be ranked above: MJ, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Wilt. or Shaq. Imo, he's also ranked below Duncan.
Bird is at most #7 on the GOAT list. And he's he's #8 on mine.
Interchangable at #3? LOL. Instant credibility loss.
Kareem has 2 les without Magic. Magic has 1 without Kareem. Kareem also have more MVPs. Magic's great, but he was also fortunate enough to never have a bad team around him at any point in his career, unlike Kareem. You have to also factor what the greats had around them, not just how many les they won. Magic was almost never at a disadvantage in terms of team talent vs his opponents. Have Magic's Lakers ever been worse than 3rd best team in the NBA? Seriously. At any point he was on that team besides his "comeback from AIDS retirement". Meanwhile, Kareem's been on several stinkers. Specifically because he wasn't drafted onto a golden team that was set to be good for a decade rather than just a couple years.
Kareem > Magic. Was more accomplished, has more records, was a more dominant force on BOTH ends rather than just one.
Huh? Kareem played with Bobby Dangdridge and Oscar in Milwaukee. Any Spurs fan should know how good Dandridge is, since he denied them a le. The only time Kareem was ever on a bad team was right after he forced his way out of Milwaukee, so that's his own fault.
Scoreboard: 4-2 I believe it was. Wilt won the head to head at age 34. they weren't playing in the playground. Seeing that Jabbar was running into the stands I can only imagine what Wilt would have done to him at age 23.I didn't mind it, just sounded funny tbh. Kareem won head to head with Wilt in the playoffs, show me otherwise please. He outscored Wilt and kept him under 40% for much of the 72 series (shooting around 45% himself, IIRC). He was thoroughly dominated, but it just wasn't enough to win since games are decided on more than 1 player.
If we're speaking strickly playoffs, Kareem definitely carried his Bucks if you think Wilt was anywhere close to doing that during the playoffs. If you want to talk regular season, again, a weaker decade than the 70s. Not many people would disagree, tbh.
Weaker era, Wilt was just extraordinary athletic compared to all the other bigs. The closest matchup for him was Russel and his athleticism wasn't as impressive compared to the centers that came later on. Wilt, on the other hand, would still be considered an excellent athleted by today's standards - but his playstyle wouldn't allow him to drop 50 points a game when other centers had comparable athleticism
It's irrelevant what kind of person Kareem was, he shaped up after playing with Magic.
Publications are irrelevant, especially from Sl
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...reatestCenters
And as for your era discussion, Kareem never had to deal with a team like those 60s Celtics teams. He entered the same year Russel retired. Kareem also won a single le in the 70s despite never having to contend with a dominant team like that. He made it to the WCF a single time without those two and lost to Walton. He was David Robinson.
You want to give me that horse about stat ac ulation but during those years that's all Jabbar did because without Oscar or Magic he couldn't carry . He was the best player on slightly better than average teams. Even then he still took 6 more years to match Chamberlain's records.
Chamberlain on the other hand was deep in the playoffs every year and finally was able to overcome those Celtics teams. Kareem couldn't beat Walton.
And spare me that Kareem carried teams. He may have been the best player but he hardly carried the Big O much less Magic. This is exemplified by the fact that he didn't even win his conference before Oscar came on board and of course Magic's signature moment where he took the tip and won without Kareem.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 07-16-2012 at 09:53 PM.
By your Logic Kobe is better than Duncan because LAL won more playoff matchups, I doubt you think that way
Real talk, Kareem completely outplayed Wilt. I never recall Wilt shooting that low % before playing against Kareem, Even Russel couldn't guard him that well.
Kareem had to deal with the late 70s & 80s Celtics, a much better team
Kareem wasn't the same kind of stat Wilt was, tbh. Kareem actually let Oscar do his thing if it meant they would win the game. Wilt played 100% me-ball until he joined up with west. People didn't like playing with Wilt, it's fairly well do ented. He refused to play team ball
Weaker era, all he had to contend with was an overrated Celtics team. The only reason the greens won so much was because they stacked their team up with so much talent and had a big man comparable to Wilt. I know you're about to say that's contradictory, lemme finish. The talent during that era was....wait for it....not really that good! They just had more of it, but if Wilt is as great as you say he is then he should have utterly dominated the Celtics.
Oscar was pulling his own weight in his twilight years, battling injuries and all. Although it was never any doubt that Kareem was by far the biggest factor in the championship Bucks team. Oscar wasn't defender he used to be at that point, Kareem had to pretty much anchor the team's defense. He carried them, it's hard to doubt that. What's even more is that in the showtime era, old man Kareem carried the Lakers through pivitol games, even entire series'. Never through an entire stretch of the playoffs, too much talent with Magic & Worthy, but he did at an old age what Wilt could not.
Overrated my ass. You just conveniently toss out completely bull arguments. Those Celtics won 8 championships in a row and 9 in 10 yeas. Most years they had to go through the teams that Wilt was carrying in the ECF and then the best the Western Conference could offer. Year after year after year.By your Logic Kobe is better than Duncan because LAL won more playoff matchups, I doubt you think that way
Real talk, Kareem completely outplayed Wilt. I never recall Wilt shooting that low % before playing against Kareem, Even Russel couldn't guard him that well.
Kareem had to deal with the late 70s & 80s Celtics, a much better team
Kareem wasn't the same kind of stat Wilt was, tbh. Kareem actually let Oscar do his thing if it meant they would win the game. Wilt played 100% me-ball until he joined up with west. People didn't like playing with Wilt, it's fairly well do ented. He refused to play team ball
Weaker era, all he had to contend with was an overrated Celtics team. The only reason the greens won so much was because they stacked their team up with so much talent and had a big man comparable to Wilt. I know you're about to say that's contradictory, lemme finish. The talent during that era was....wait for it....not really that good! They just had more of it, but if Wilt is as great as you say he is then he should have utterly dominated the Celtics.
Oscar was pulling his own weight in his twilight years, battling injuries and all. Although it was never any doubt that Kareem was by far the biggest factor in the championship Bucks team. Oscar wasn't defender he used to be at that point, Kareem had to pretty much anchor the team's defense. He carried them, it's hard to doubt that. What's even more is that in the showtime era, old man Kareem carried the Lakers through pivitol games, even entire series'. Never through an entire stretch of the playoffs, too much talent with Magic & Worthy, but he did at an old age what Wilt could not.
The 80s Celtics had perhaps the all time greatest front court but their guards were decent and their bench mediocre. They won 2 and had mixed levels of success otherwise including losing to the Lakers in 1985. The 60s Celtics dominated the league for a decade. It's not even in the same stratosphere.
Don't buy the David Stern hype.
The only thing that is overrated is a brain that tries to use championship tallies to justify Kareem and then think that the greatest dynasty in basketball history is overrated.
And one thing that you neglect to consider is that when Kareem played professional basketball was watered down by the existence of the ABA. It's interesting that is not considered in your commentary on eras. When there was one league Wilt was scoring 100 point grabbing 50 rebounds averaging 50/25 and so forth. One league not two. Those Celtics won championships with one league not two.
Kareem did not win without The Big O or Magic. He went 9 years without and made quick exits from the playoffs --when he actually made them-- all but one year when he got swept by Walton. Maybe at some point you will address that. I doubt it since its the third time I have had to bring it up.
Let's also not forget the one that was supposedly carrying teams missed the playoffs not once but twice during that span. Tag onto that another first round exit and exactly what was he carrying in what was obviously his prime? A mediocre team? He was pivotal during that stretch obviously. Much of this is in the watered down league.
And again Wilt was 34 and Alcindor was 23. Wilt's team won. You can try and hang your hat on that but I'm not buying it. Further Alcindor averaged 36/16 at 58% that season and against Chamberlain he was held him under his season averages and to an abysmal 43% from the field.
For all of your assertion of Robinson not being the defender he once was, he locked down West for much of that series. Kareem still couldn't carry them to victory.
Now i guess you could try and hang you hat on Jabbar holding up until he was 41 but I would counter that it took those extra 5 years for him to catch Chamberlain's records.
On a final note I don't put Duncan in front of Kobe. Perhaps if Duncan hadn't tore his knee up in 2006 then it might be different but it is what it is. Same number of MVPs but Bryant has the scoring les and championships. Overall he has had a better body of work. I recognize that.
Wilt Chamberlain vs Kareem Abdul-Jabbar game by game stats
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=170340
Regular season – 1969-70
1. Date: Fri 10/24/69
- Chamberlain 25 pts, 25 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 9-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 23 pts, 20 rebs, 2 as, 2 blocks, 9-21 FG/FGA L
Regular season – 1970-71
2. Date: Fri 11/20/70
- Chamberlain 28 pts, 23 rebs, 3 as, 10 blocks, 7-20 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 13 rebs, 0 as, 2 blocks, 13-32 FG/FGA W
3. Date: Mon 12/21/70
- Chamberlain 25 pts, 14 rebs, 3 as, 2 blocks, 11-23 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 16 rebs, 0 as, 4 blocks, 17-33 FG/FGA W
4. Date: Fri 02/05/71
- Chamberlain 14 pts, 14 rebs, 3 as, 6 blocks, 7-10 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 27 pts, 10 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA L
5. Date: Thu 02/11/71
- Chamberlain 25 pts, 11 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 21 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 13-30 FG/FGA – 2 blocks against Wilt W
6. Date: Wed 03/03/71
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 13 rebs, 5 as, 8 blocks, 7-15 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 15 pts, 6 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-21 FG/FGA W
Post season – 1970-71 – WCF playoffs
7. Date: Fri 04/09/71
- Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA – 3 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 32 pts, 22 rebs, 1 as, 1 blocks, 14-30 FG/FGA W
8. Date: Sun 04/11/71
- Chamberlain 26 pts, 22 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA - Wilt blocked numerious shots L
-Abdul-Jabbar 22 pts, 10 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W
9. Date: Wed 04/14/71
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 24 rebs, 3 as, 3 blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 19 rebs, 6 as, 0 blocks, 8-16 FG/FGA L
10.Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 15 pts, 16 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-14 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 14-20 FG/FGA W
11.Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 23 pts, 12 rebs, 4 as, 6 blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA – 5 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 15 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 7-23 FG/FGA W
Regular season – 1971-72
12.Date: Sat 11/21/71
- Chamberlain 11 pts, 26 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 4-9 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 39 pts, 17 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 17-33 FG/FGA L
13.Date: Sun 01/09/72
- Chamberlain 15 pts, 12 rebs, 2 as, 6 blocks, 7-11 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 39 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, 9 blocks, 18-34 FG/FGA W
14.Date: Fri 02/04/72
- Chamberlain 18 pts, 25 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 8-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 40 pts, 18 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 16-33 FG/FGA L
15.Date: Wed 03/01/72
- Chamberlain 8 pts, 17 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 12 rebs, 8 as, * blocks, 13-33 FG/FGA L
16.Date: Fri 03/17/72
- Chamberlain 18 pts, 25 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 7-15 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 50 pts, 8 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 22-39 FG/FGA L
Post season – 1971-72 – WCF playoffs
17.Date: Sun 04/09/72
- Chamberlain 10 pts, 24 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 3-12 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 18 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 14-26 FG/FGA W
18.Date: Wed 04/12/72
- Chamberlain 11 pts, 17 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 40 pts, 7 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 18-31 FG/FGA L
19.Date: Fri 04/14/72
- Chamberlain 7 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, 10 blocks, 1-3 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 21 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 15-37 FG/FGA L
20.Date: Sun 04/16/72
- Chamberlain 5 pts, 11 rebs, 4 as, 3 blocks, 2-7 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 18 rebs, 3 as, 7 blocks, 14-33 FG/FGA W
21.Date: Tue 04/18/72
- Chamberlain 12 pts, 26 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 2-3 FG/FGA - 4 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 28 pts, 16 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 13-33 FG/FGA L
22.Date: Sat 04/22/72
- Chamberlain 20 pts, 24 rebs, 2 as, 9 blocks, 8-12 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 25 rebs, 8 as, * blocks, 16-37 FG/FGA L
Regular season – 1972-73
23.Date: Tue 11/14/72
- Chamberlain 16 pts, 15 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 8-12 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 16 rebs, 6 as, 7 blocks, 17-32 FG/FGA L
24.Date: Tue 12/05/72
- Chamberlain 9 pts, 15 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 4-4 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 17 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 11-30 FG/FGA L
25.Date: Sun 01/07/73
- Chamberlain 9 pts, 18 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 12 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 17-36 FG/FGA W
26.Date: Fri 02/09/73
- Chamberlain 8 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 3-3 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 24 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 14-24 FG/FGA W
27.Date: Sun 02/25/73
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 20 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 10-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 21 pts, 21 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 10-27 FG/FGA L
28.Date: Tue 03/27/73
- Chamberlain 0 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 0-0 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 24 pts, 17 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 12-31 FG/FGA W
For a Lakers fan you really do not seem to understand what the Lakers asked the 33-36 year old Chamberlain to do. There's a reason why he dominated the boards most of those games. There's also a reason why he took a whole lot less shots.
You are doing the equivalent of posting recent stats of Howard and comparing them to Duncans and acting like you have made a point. It also should be pointed out that in the earlier contests they went back forth even with Chamberlain on the wrong side of 30 and as he aged he declined while Jabbar was still in his prime.
So congratulations you have proven that prime Jabbar was for the most part better than twilight Chamberlain. He still beat Jabbar in the WCF. He still played in a an NBA not watered down by the ABA, still didn't wallow in mediocre teams for 9 years. Still had the 5 greatest seasons for a big man in NBA history. 5 highest PPG for a season. 7 for RPG. Top 2 FG%. 100 points in a game. 50 RPG. Records that will never be beaten.
They didn't tally blocks otherwise I imagine he would be up there too. He literally would grab shots out of the air.
He had more scoring les more rebounding les more assist les.
Oh and ESPN ranks Chamberlain higher as well.
http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/athletes.html
1. Michael Jordan
2. Babe Ruth
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Jim Brown
5. Wayne Gretzky
6. Jesse Owens
7. Jim Thorpe
8. Willie Mays
9. Jack Nicklaus
10. Babe Didrikson
11. Joe Louis
12. Carl Lewis
13. Wilt Chamberlain
14. Hank Aaron
15. Jackie Robinson
16. Ted Williams
17. Magic Johnson
18. Bill Russell
19. Martina Navratilova
20. Ty Cobb
21. Gordie Howe
22. Joe DiMaggio
23. Jackie Joyner-Kersee
24. Sugar Ray Robinson
25. Joe Montana
26. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
27. Jerry Rice
28. Red Grange
29. Arnold Palmer
30. Larry Bird
31. Bobby Orr
32. Johnny Unitas
33. Mark Spitz
34. Lou Gehrig
35. Secretariat
36. Oscar Robertson
37. Mickey Mantle
38. Ben Hogan
39. Walter Payton
40. Lawrence Taylor
41. Wilma Rudolph
42. Sandy Koufax
43. Julius Erving
44. Bobby Jones
45. Bill Tilden
46. Eric Heiden
47. Edwin Moses
48. Pete Sampras
49. O.J. Simpson
50. Chris Evert
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 07-17-2012 at 09:19 PM.
Celtics won in a weak era, let's just throw that under the bus. Nobody is going to even attempt to argue the late 70s celtics, 80s and big 3 of the 2000s wouldn't do anything less than stomp the Russel celtics with ease. I doubt even the resident Celtic fans here would think the Russel Celtics were at the level to compete with the late 70-80s top NBA teams.
By your logic, the Russel Celtics would dominate today
This isn't Stern hype, it's plain logic. Athletes produced are are better as the decades go on.
I don't need to consider the ABA because the overall talent difference is much greater than you seem to understand. Mikan changed the damn rules of basketball simply because it was abnormal for a man to be that size and have enough athleticism & coordination to jump high enough to block shots about to go in the cylinder so easily. The NBA was such a joke before the 70s and 10x more before the 60s compared to 80s and onward.
Kareem's prime was the moment he joined the Lakers, he carried them and couldn't win because the NBA wasn't as big of a joke as it was in Wilt's era. Lakers were alright, but not good enough since acquiring Kareem cost them a lot. Wilt wouldn't have done better, he would have done much worse tbh (if he was in his prime at that time). I don't know how hard it is for you to comprehend that Kareem was more skilled than Wilt, he was considered a finesse player for the later half of his career while posessing athleticism as good as Wilt's if not better.Let's also not forget the one that was supposedly carrying teams missed the playoffs not once but twice during that span. Tag onto that another first round exit and exactly what was he carrying in what was obviously his prime? A mediocre team? He was pivotal during that stretch obviously. Much of this is in the watered down league.
Wilt was 34 and a veteren, over 60% FG and that was cut in half by Kareem. Utterly outplayed, you can't pull the tosb argument. Kareem was held down a little, but he was in the league for just 2 years (iirc) before the matchup. Your GOAT center, a veteren, was manhandled by a green Kareem that was coming back from injury.
West dominated that series, he was only slowed down by Oscar for the first game iirc. Prove otherwise, please
I don't need to "hang on my hat" on Kareem's longevity, even though he peaked higher than Wilt by miles and didn't lose his game as quickly while keeping up with a rabidly evolving league. It's a credit to Magic in part so I won't bother with it
If you don't put Duncan infront of Kobe, you got plenty of spurfans and non-spurfans to talk with about that
Russell would probably be the best center in the NBA right now. Have you been paying attention to the big man talent in the NBA lately?
Celtics won in a weak era, let's just throw that under the bus. Nobody is going to even attempt to argue the late 70s celtics, 80s and big 3 of the 2000s wouldn't do anything less than stomp the Russel celtics with ease. I doubt even the resident Celtic fans here would think the Russel Celtics were at the level to compete with the late 70-80s top NBA teams.
By your logic, the Russel Celtics would dominate today
This isn't Stern hype, it's plain logic. Athletes produced are are better as the decades go on.
I don't need to consider the ABA because the overall talent difference is much greater than you seem to understand. Mikan changed the damn rules of basketball simply because it was abnormal for a man to be that size and have enough athleticism & coordination to jump high enough to block shots about to go in the cylinder so easily. The NBA was such a joke before the 70s and 10x more before the 60s compared to 80s and onward.
Kareem's prime was the moment he joined the Lakers, he carried them and couldn't win because the NBA wasn't as big of a joke as it was in Wilt's era. Lakers were alright, but not good enough since acquiring Kareem cost them a lot. Wilt wouldn't have done better, he would have done much worse tbh (if he was in his prime at that time). I don't know how hard it is for you to comprehend that Kareem was more skilled than Wilt, he was considered a finesse player for the later half of his career while posessing athleticism as good as Wilt's if not better.
Wilt was 34 and a veteren, over 60% FG and that was cut in half by Kareem. Utterly outplayed, you can't pull the tosb argument. Kareem was held down a little, but he was in the league for just 2 years (iirc) before the matchup. Your GOAT center, a veteren, was manhandled by a green Kareem that was coming back from injury.
West dominated that series, he was only slowed down by Oscar for the first game iirc. Prove otherwise, please
I don't need to "hang on my hat" on Kareem's longevity, even though he peaked higher than Wilt by miles and didn't lose his game as quickly while keeping up with a rabidly evolving league. It's a credit to Magic in part so I won't bother with it
If you don't put Duncan infront of Kobe, you got plenty of spurfans and non-spurfans to talk with about that
Tyson chandler was rated as the third best C in the country.
Bynum?
He had a more refined game than Howard.
You just throw out ty assertions and assume that they are true. You don't even bother to address the watering down effect of the ABA. Let's discuss the players that played in the ABA and not the NBA thus Alcindor didn't have to face them as he was missing the playoffs and having first round exits:
Julius Irving
George Gervin
Moses Malone
Mel Daniels
Artis Gilmore
Dan Issel
Louie Dampier
Rick Barry
Billy Cunningham
Connie Hawkins
David Thompson
Cliff Hagan
Those are just the hall of famers. While perhaps the overall talent in pro basketball was higher for most of the 1970s it was not all in one league. Jabbar played in a watered down NBA that had many of its best players poached.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABA_All-Time_Team
Thats a good list of guys that Alcindor didn't have to face.
You going to address this or you just going to repeat yourself that the 1970s were the better era for the NBA? You going to demonstrate how the remaining NBA players were superior in talent. All I see is bluster.
Jabbar didn't have to face the best pro basketball had to offer. Chamberlain did.
As for your assertions about better athletes lets look at how he shot free throws before they changed the rules:
Better athletes my ass. They also widened the lane.When Wilt Chamberlain was in high school, he had a unique way of shooting free-throws. He would stand at the top of the key, throw the ball up toward the basket, take two steps, jump toward the rim and jam the ball through the net. Doing this resulted in basketball rules to state that a player cannot cross the plane of the free-throw line when shooting a free-throw.
I don't even know why you brought up Mikan. He played in a segregated NBA for half of his career. Wilt came in 9 years after.
As for the matchup you do not even bother to address Alcindor's 68% FG being brought down to 43%. You do not address their respective roles on the team.
Your statement of ridicule as TOSB in no way refutes the argument. I am noticing that you are again resorting to bluster and blanket dismissals.
Its a simple fact of life that athletic ability diminishes as you get older typically from the age of 30 onward. A 34 year old is not the same as a 23 year old in his prime.
It was only Jabbar's 2nd year but this is not the modern era of basketball. Quite the contrary. Jabbar played 4 years at UCLA under the greatest basketball coah of all time
A
Shall we look at their respective best seasons? Let's do that:
First lets look at Jabbars best totals for points rebounds and FG% and for kicks assists.
35/16/58%/5
Lets look at Chamberlain's seasons that surpassed those:
points: 50, 44, 37, and another 37
rebounds: Every season he played for his 16 year career.
FG%: 73, 68, 65, 60,
Assists: 8.6, 7.8
Now let's look at relative performance at age 23
Jabbar: 32/16
Chamberlain: 38/27
As for the 72 series. I read the press clipping for that era and they do not paint Jabbar's performance as dominating. They were very concerned about the league leader in FG% shooting so poorly and getting dominated on the boards. Wilt wasn't asked to score but at least Jabbar outshot him. We both know who won that series.
Let's also not forget that while Chamberlain was a man of iron and the most physically dominating men in NBA history whose only peers are Shaq O'Neal and Moses Malone, Jabbar was a vagina. When he wasn't punching in hissy fits not once but twice or trying to big time guards, he was running into the stands away from Chamberlain or getting otherwise rooted out from the block.
Both were considered malcontents off the court but Chamberlain was noted for all the abuse he soaked up and still dominating. Jabbar and Washington made one of the biggest combos in NBA history.
If you Jabbar was bigger then that was one thing but when met with similar or superior size he could be handled on the block. Chamberlain did in 1972.
Explain why you think Bird should be ranked ahead of Russell, and how you think Bird should also be ranked about any of: MJ, Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, and Duncan. Explain using facts, rather than more gotry.
His accolades are worse than every listed player. Only has equal to or more les than one of them, but that one changed the game due to his dominance and still holds many records.
Bird is #7 at best. He's #8 on my list. Only one guy I rank above him has less les (Wilt), and only 2 have less MVPs (Shaq, who was clearly more dominant than Bird, and had a longer career with more success), and Duncan (who has more rings in a smaller market with less help, a better win%, more All NBA and far more All defensive team placements, more all star appearances, etc.)
Wtf does Bird have over any of them? Besides being white and the nostalgia factor? Answer: Nothing.
Prove it.
The criticism of SLAM magazine is nothing more than a fallacy of ridicule. At the end of the day the writers and editors of the magazine are licensed by the NBA, have access to NBA teams and offices and the publication has been written by notable authors that have worked at publications such as ESPN and Sports Illustrated.
Yes the publication attempts to appeal to popular culture as they have hired people that have written for Rolling Stone and Vibe but as a whole the contributors to the magazine are more qualified than a bunch of random people from a message board.
The argument is equivalent to bashing Sesame Street in a discussion about education because it appeals to kids.
To me Chamberlin was the best, Jabbar was second, Jordan third, Oscar 4th, Magic 5th, Bird 6th, and Dr J 7th, Russell 8th. The reason is because I have seen all of them play and in their prime. My view is based off how they played the game, who they had to play with and against, and how much help did they get from the zebras. Maybe not best player, but the most skilled player with a basketball remains Maravich and it is not even close.
I actually feel sorry for folks who never got to see these guys play and only have today's game to base the talent level. Most make lists without ever seeing the players play. Jabbar is not on top of most lists for those who have never seen his game.
Wilt didn't win enough to be considered the best overall player. Best individual talent? Maybe. But stats are only half of the story when looking at a player. Individual performance + team success is what defines a players standing. Similarly Oscar was a stat machine like Wilt but he didn't win enough to be considered the 4th best player of all time.
Last edited by namlook; 07-18-2012 at 02:59 PM.
The essential point of this thread is way off...it's not like Kareem is constantly shafted out of "greatest of all time" talks. He's almost always up there with Jordan, Wilt, Magic and Bird.
Spare me. Wilt had winning season every year but one. He missed the playoff once. Evaluating a player on things beyond that players control such as personnel is horse . Both players won when surrounded by multiple Hall of Famers but Jabbar just was lucky to get more of them.
Jabbar went NINE YEARS on mediocre teams after Wilt left. That's almost half of his career. If you want to look at team performance then you cannot just discount that.
And its not that Wilt just had better stats but he set records that will never be broken. You do not create stats out of nothing and both did it year after year going deep into the playoffs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
