All-Time Center List By ESPN

[SpursIndonesia]

First of all, he was reportedly 6'9". 6'9" 220 pound athletes are a dime a dozen in today's league. That's not to say he wouldn't be effective today, but the idea that he was some out of this world player with his athleticism is kind of silly. People love to romanticize his blocking prowess and how high he could jump. Watch the videos again. There's nothing there that is consistently spectacular. A lot of his "highlight reel" blocks are him swatting the ball from a 6'3" guy who drives way under the hoop and tries to throw up a prayer.

And again, he could barely dribble the ball down the court without nearly losing control. It's pretty painful to watch.

I've read a thread in some forum discussing his height, it seems a golden aged Russel is still just only a hair shorter than TD and clearly as tall as the likes of Howard. Yes he was not all bulked up back then, but with that body build it was enough to block Chamberlain and other big man of the league, why using it as a factor against him ? Most big men in his era were relatively rail thin compared to guys in today's NBA anyway.

Like what i've said earlier, i see a footage about his NCAA game, he dribbled coast to coast in real time speed & ended up with a tomahawk .... lay up lol racist era basketball, with guard like speed of today's NBA, that's nothing short of great potential in his game, that perhaps went unrealized in the Celtics team's player role build up.

[Russo21]

I was watching a different video with loudmouth Stephen A Smith discussing the same topic and he mentioned how Shaq 'rag-dolled Duncan and Robinson' Yep shaq and the Lakers got passed Tim and the Spurs a few times but Tim got passed Shaq and his Lakers a few times also, a sweep in 99 and sent Shaq and Kobe home crying in 03 (and shaq with the Suns also). That's what happens when greats meet greats, you win some, you lose some. The 'rag dolled' comment was a bit disrespectful to Tim and Dave.

[Obstructed_View]

I was watching a different video with loudmouth Stephen A Smith discussing the same topic and he mentioned how Shaq 'rag-dolled Duncan and Robinson' Yep shaq and the Lakers got passed Tim and the Spurs a few times but Tim got passed Shaq and his Lakers a few times also, a sweep in 99 and sent Shaq and Kobe home crying in 03 (and shaq with the Suns also). That's what happens when greats meet greats, you win some, you lose some. The 'rag dolled' comment was a bit disrespectful to Tim and Dave.

That was a funny statement. I think Shaq met the Spurs three times in the playoffs when both Timmy and David were healthy, and the Spurs won twice.

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

Drob should be ahead of Malone. Other than that, I would agree with that list.

[Obstructed_View]

Apparently your value as a center depends on how many hall of fame teammates you have.

[barbacoataco]

These are all time great lists. When composing such a list the general rule is you compare players based on their accomplishments. If you want to say all athletes from the past were inferior, then don't participate. You can just make a list of the best players from the past 15 years.

Also, let's be honest that if modern athletes really are do much better it's because of roids and other PED's. Not "better nutrition."

[MultiTroll]

Bob Parish in
Patrick Ewing out

[Raven]

Wilt should be #1

[will_spurs]

These are all time great lists. When composing such a list the general rule is you compare players based on their accomplishments. If you want to say all athletes from the past were inferior, then don't participate. You can just make a list of the best players from the past 15 years.

Also, let's be honest that if modern athletes really are do much better it's because of roids and other PED's. Not "better nutrition."

Part of it is true, but it's kind of a stretch to say that the Russell-era was truly the NBA. It's easier to be the greatest when the compe ion is so small.

[SouthernFried]

I think it might be helpful to reverse thinking on this. Not thinking "could Russel dominate today"...but, would people like Jordan have even made it to the NBA back then?

When there were no massive scouting combines looking at the potential of 12 yr olds back then. Throwing massive money at anything that looks like it could be a potential star. Grooming, training, funding them every step of the way. There wasn't the en led mentality of many kids today. Playing Basketball in the NBA wasn't the dream of every kid on the block. It took a special type of person to overcome societal issues of the day and totally commit themselves to something that wasn't even close to providing the rewards for the players as it does now. The single mindedness of those players to play a game that wasn't near as popular as it is now.

How many current NBA players would have even tried or given up early because nobody was pushing them or supporting them? It wasn't winning the lottery back then. It was a different mindset. The NBA players back then not only had to be physically capable of the game...but, overcome many other obstacles like segregation, etc...to do what they had to do. How many of today's players, if they were raised in those times, would even had the for ude to make it to the NBA? Athletic 6'10" players just didn't start growing in the 90's. They were there in the 50's too. They didn't make it to the NBA. Russell did.

So, you can't compare them. You cannot compare generational players. Because there is so much more going on in each generation outside of just "dribbling the basketball," that determines greatness in those times. You just pick the best of that generation and move on. How they dominated their particular time in history.

And Bill Russell Dominated his generation. 11 rings and 2 NCAA championships. Are you kidding me?? And he did it during some of the most troubled times in our history...which he was an ACTIVE part of as well. Bill Russell would be my number 1 or 2 player. No question about it.

Even tho I've always found him annoying to listen to....

[MVPCues]

http://www.nba.com/encyclopedia/ryan_rivalries.html

I think it is a good list. I'm not convinced any particular player should absolutely not be on it or vice versa, but there are cases to be had.

To some extent, Wilt's dominance is what allowed Russel to be in this discussion. If Wilt was not such a dominant force, then the discussion would be that Boston was simply way better during those years than Wilt's teams. Wilt was that dominant, yet he was 1 for 10 and boston was 9 for 10 in the playoffs those years. Huh. That must mean Russel was that great also? He must have shut Wilt down?

Wilt average 28.7 and 28.7 against Russel over 142 games. He scored 62 against Russel in a game. Wilt scored 50+ seven times against Russel. That isn't exactly shutting him down.

Boston was simply better. Russel was great. He averaged 15.1 and 22.5. Eleven rings is ridiculous. But, IMO, being part of the longest and best rivalry with Wilt is what puts him so high. I think he deserves to be on the list but not at #3 above some of those other names.

[Cry Havoc]

I've read a thread in some forum discussing his height, it seems a golden aged Russel is still just only a hair shorter than TD and clearly as tall as the likes of Howard. Yes he was not all bulked up back then, but with that body build it was enough to block Chamberlain and other big man of the league, why using it as a factor against him ? Most big men in his era were relatively rail thin compared to guys in today's NBA anyway.

Like what i've said earlier, i see a footage about his NCAA game, he dribbled coast to coast in real time speed & ended up with a tomahawk .... lay up lol racist era basketball, with guard like speed of today's NBA, that's nothing short of great potential in his game, that perhaps went unrealized in the Celtics team's player role build up.

You realize Wilt had monster games almost every time they played, right? And the Celtics had a superteam while Wilt had no one around him for most of his career, right?

Of course not. Because that doesn't fit the narrative. I'm sure that Russell was just so amazing that having 4 other HOF teammates had nothing to do with getting 11 rings.

[Cry Havoc]

Wilt average 28.7 and 28.7 against Russel over 142 games. He scored 62 against Russel in a game. Wilt scored 50+ seven times against Russel. That isn't exactly shutting him down.

but with that body build it was enough to block Chamberlain and other big man of the league

[Vito Corleone]

Here is my list

1. Hakeem Olajuwon -
2. Bill Russell
3. Kareem
4. Wilt
5. Shaq
6. Robinson
7. Moses Malone
8. Sabonis - if only he joined the NBA in his prime, he probably would be much higher on this list
9. Bill Walton - Too bad about the injuries
10.Willis Reed

[Horse]

No way I have oneal ahead of Drob moses or hakeem. Yes he was dominant offensively(biggest kid in the neighborhood) but an underwhelming rebounder for his size and rarely played any D. As far as the playoffs I hate kobe but he's the one who got the lakers out the west then shaq would feast on the centers in the east. Dont' forget shaq got swept every year to start his career.

[Kawhitstorm]

Here is my list

1. Hakeem Olajuwon -
2. Bill Russell
3. Kareem
4. Wilt
5. Shaq
6. Robinson
7. Moses Malone
8. Sabonis - if only he joined the NBA in his prime, he probably would be much higher on this list
9. Bill Walton - Too bad about the injuries
10.Willis Reed

Hakeem got shat on by past prime Kareem

[tholdren]

Part of it is true, but it's kind of a stretch to say that the Russell-era was truly the NBA. It's easier to be the greatest when the compe ion is so small.

It's about hard work and luck. Systemically you can succeed in HS fail in nba, mediocre college to nba superstar. Era is just part of luck

[HarlemHeat37]

NBA full of White American players..smh..

[tholdren]

NBA full of White American players..smh..

What does that mean?

[SPURt]

I think it might be helpful to reverse thinking on this. Not thinking "could Russel dominate today"...but, would people like Jordan have even made it to the NBA back then?

When there were no massive scouting combines looking at the potential of 12 yr olds back then. Throwing massive money at anything that looks like it could be a potential star. Grooming, training, funding them every step of the way. There wasn't the en led mentality of many kids today. Playing Basketball in the NBA wasn't the dream of every kid on the block. It took a special type of person to overcome societal issues of the day and totally commit themselves to something that wasn't even close to providing the rewards for the players as it does now. The single mindedness of those players to play a game that wasn't near as popular as it is now.

How many current NBA players would have even tried or given up early because nobody was pushing them or supporting them? It wasn't winning the lottery back then. It was a different mindset. The NBA players back then not only had to be physically capable of the game...but, overcome many other obstacles like segregation, etc...to do what they had to do. How many of today's players, if they were raised in those times, would even had the for ude to make it to the NBA? Athletic 6'10" players just didn't start growing in the 90's. They were there in the 50's too. They didn't make it to the NBA. Russell did.

So, you can't compare them. You cannot compare generational players. Because there is so much more going on in each generation outside of just "dribbling the basketball," that determines greatness in those times. You just pick the best of that generation and move on. How they dominated their particular time in history.

And Bill Russell Dominated his generation. 11 rings and 2 NCAA championships. Are you kidding me?? And he did it during some of the most troubled times in our history...which he was an ACTIVE part of as well. Bill Russell would be my number 1 or 2 player. No question about it.

Even tho I've always found him annoying to listen to....

Great take! I've never looked at it from that perspective. The other part is nutrition, guys were smoking in locker rooms forever in the NBA and eating garbage.

[Hoops Czar]

Hakeem got shat on by past prime Kareem

Kareem put up some monster numbers for a 39 year old but, I wouldn't call a second year player that averaged roughly 33 points, 12 rebounds and 4 blocked shots in the series where Houston won in 5 games getting shat on .

[HarlemHeat37]

What does that mean?

There's a reason the league's % of White Americans has declined dramatically from the 60s until now..

[tholdren]

There's a reason the league's % of White Americans has declined dramatically from the 60s until now..

Increase in non white population?

[james evans]

Bill Russell and Wilt..Yuck...just Yuck.

Kareem
Hakeem
Shaq


After these three players theres a huge drop off.

Robinson is probably the best RS center though. Id put him just above moses.

u obviously have never seen Moses Malone in his prime play. Just go to youtube and look at a few highlights(though that still will do him no justice). Moses Malone was a ing beast. I would have put someone like Reed or Hayes over Walton though. He had a 4 or 5 year good run, but that's it. Injuries destroyed his career. He was still able to contribute to Boston in 86, but I just can't see Walton as an all time top 10 center for the few years he was great.

[james evans]

Hakeem got shat on by past prime Kareem

Hakeem in his 2nd year was serving Kareem something serious, but Kareem gave to him just as he received. You are failing to mention that Karee had just won the finals mvp a year prior as he was ' ting on" everyone really.