Duncan>Hakeem.

[bobbyjoe]

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.

Thanks for proving my point. This era is so weak that even a guy like Marcus Camby can win a Defensive Player of the Year Award.

Do you think Camby even gets one vote for DPOY playing in an era of David Robinson, Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman, Alonzo Mourning, Scottie Pippen, Dikembe Mutombo, and Gary Payton? no.

Yet Duncan hasn't won a single DPOY award.

Also, it's utter hypocrisy and completely ridiculous for Spur fan to say "Duncan is better than Hakeem because 4>2" then say "Hakeem's #'s were matched by Shaq in 1995" and ignoring the 4-0 series sweep.

Hakeem did clearly outplay Shaq in 1995 and Shaq has always been the first person to admit this. Especially in the closing minutes of the series-defining moments, Hakeem was the one making the plays and Shaq was making big mistakes (see Game 1 tip in at the buzzer to win the game).

Also, Hakeem actually guarded Shaq mano y mano and Duncan never did. It was always David Robinson or Nesterovic later on. Had Duncan had to guard Shaq at one end and carry the offensive load on the other, his offensive would have suffered.

We'll never know how Hakeem prime vs. Shaq prime would have shaken out, but we know taht Shaq got the better of Duncan head to head when both were in their primes. His teams won more and he outplayed TD individually. Shaq>Duncan. Hakeem vs. Duncan is closer than Shaq vs. Duncan. I would take Shaq over both.

Why was Olajuwon given credit by the media for DPOY? Because he usually led the league in blocked shots or was 2nd, played great individual D, and even ranked top 10 year in and year out in steals, almost unheard of for a Center. If Duncan had this kind of resume or impact defensively, of course he'd have won a few DPOY himself in such a weak era.

There's a difference between being a great defensive player (Hakeem, Russell, DRob, Scottie) and a good defensive player (Duncan).

You can't tell me the media overlooks Duncan because the guy is always very high in MVP voting and All-NBA first teams. They just dont see him as the defensive beast you do...

[bobbyjoe]

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.

Shaq of 2000-2002 was more dominant than Shaq 95. No doubt.

But the point is that even a young Shaq was tremendous compe ion. He was still a 29/12/3 guy who shot nearly 60% from the field. You combine his prowess even in his young 20's with DRob, Ewing, Zo, Mutombo, Hakeem in their primes and you have arguably the Golden Age of NBA Centers. Behind MJ, Hakeem, and Karl Malone, Shaq was still a top 5 player in the NBA even in his younger years.

Duncan doesn't compete against a single big man in today's NBA who is as good as a Shaq of 1995. It's that barren at big man. , Mehmet freakin Okur made the All Star game this year. What does that tell you?

That's the point Spur Fan seems to try to get away from because it's almost impossible to argue against something so obvious (and in this case, something that causes Duncan to stack up unfavorably against a guy who earned his against a stronger field).

[JamStone]

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.

First, off, I included Wes Unseld by mistake. I also put him in the original post as an undersized hall of fame type.

Second Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, and Elvin Hayes equals 3. Hayes was someone I stated in that post as 6-9, as one of the two hall of fame big men I missed by an inch. Three.

And, didn't you say "half" my list was bull ? Since when was 3 bull ?

And, going back to your original point of 6-foot-7 centers, as you can see, there were plenty of quality big men back in Wilt Chamberlain's and Bill Russell's era that were bigger than unathletic 6-foot-7 centers. Rather than arguing trivial crap like how one inch makes a difference, you should actually try looking at the point of me listing big, tall, tough legitimate big men back in the 60s and 70s.

Throughout this thread, you argued as if Wilt and Russell only battled against 6-4 to 6-7 unathletic centers. That's obviously not the case. You arguing over two guys that are 6-foot-9 as opposed to 6-foot-10 is ridiculous, especially when you consider that Reed and Hayes are hall of fame big men.

Your argument is feces.

[mavs>spurs2]

First, off, I included Wes Unseld by mistake. I also put him in the original post as an undersized hall of fame type.

Second Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, and Elvin Hayes equals 3. Hayes was someone I stated in that post as 6-9, as one of the two hall of fame big men I missed by an inch. Three.

And, didn't you say "half" my list was bull ? Since when was 3 bull ?

And, going back to your original point of 6-foot-7 centers, as you can see, there were plenty of quality big men back in Wilt Chamberlain's and Bill Russell's era that were bigger than unathletic 6-foot-7 centers. Rather than arguing trivial crap like how one inch makes a difference, you should actually try looking at the point of me listing big, tall, tough legitimate big men back in the 60s and 70s.

Throughout this thread, you argued as if Wilt and Russell only battled against 6-4 to 6-7 unathletic centers. That's obviously not the case. You arguing over two guys that are 6-foot-9 as opposed to 6-foot-10 is ridiculous, especially when you consider that Reed and Hayes are hall of fame big men.

Your argument is feces.

You're only further proving my point. Three of the best centers from that era were 6ft7-6ft9, small for even a power forward in today's league. And you are only listing a handful of players out of an entire era. There were plenty other centers from back then that don't make the cut.

I could list 10 players under 6ft from the last 20 years, and say that nba players are getting smaller. But we would both know that is bull , it's not the AVERAGE for players of any position.

It is an evolutionary FACT that people are growing taller. Look into it yourself, average height has slowly grown over the past 50 years.

I think it's your arguement thats , especially since u sat here viewing the thread for about 2 hours before u finally came up with that last post.

[JamStone]

I wasn't even on my computer for the last two hours before I wrote that post. How sad that that has to be an argument for you. How sad for you.

There were plenty of big men in Wilt's and Russell's era that were in the 6-foot-10 range, not the 6-foot-7 range that you make it appear was all through the league back then.

It goes back to your point that Wilt and Russell wouldn't be superstars in today's league. And, it just doesn't fly. If Wilt and Russell played today, they'd weigh more and would be stronger because they would be in an era of weight-lifting and conditioning and diet and nutrition maximization. You stick to the 6-foot-9 argument. You haven't even come close to address the point about Wilt and Russell being stronger in today's NBA except for some silly little point about Tony Parker not weight lifting.

I state how Wilt was an amazing athlete and he had a 48 inch vertical. And, your rebuttal is that he lied.

I give a list of 10 guys that in Wilt's and Russell's day that were 6-10 to 6-11, and you nitpick on how two of them were 6-9.

You do know there were only like 12-16 teams back then around that time, don't you?

You attack trivial discrepancies like "one inch" with two players makes all the difference in the world because you realize that your comment that Wilt and Russell wouldn't even be stars in today's NBA is completely idiotic.

There is one great center in today's NBA, Shaquille O'Neal. But Wilt would be a role player or a borderline all star. Yeah ok. Ben Wallace at 6-9 and no offensive game has won four DPOY awards in the last 7 years, but Bill Russell would be a role player.

Do you not yet realize how stupid you sound?

[mavs>spurs2]

I wasn't even on my computer for the last two hours before I wrote that post. How sad that that has to be an argument for you. How sad for you.

There were plenty of big men in Wilt's and Russell's era that were in the 6-foot-10 range, not the 6-foot-7 range that you make it appear was all through the league back then.

It goes back to your point that Wilt and Russell wouldn't be superstars in today's league. And, it just doesn't fly. If Wilt and Russell played today, they'd weigh more and would be stronger because they would be in an era of weight-lifting and conditioning and diet and nutrition maximization. You stick to the 6-foot-9 argument. You haven't even come close to address the point about Wilt and Russell being stronger in today's NBA except for some silly little point about Tony Parker not weight lifting.

I state how Wilt was an amazing athlete and he had a 48 inch vertical. And, your rebuttal is that he lied.

I give a list of 10 guys that in Wilt's and Russell's day that were 6-10 to 6-11, and you nitpick on how two of them were 6-9.

You do know there were only like 12-16 teams back then around that time, don't you?

You attack trivial discrepancies like "one inch" with two players makes all the difference in the world because you realize that your comment that Wilt and Russell wouldn't even be stars in today's NBA is completely idiotic.

There is one great center in today's NBA, Shaquille O'Neal. But Wilt would be a role player or a borderline all star. Yeah ok. Ben Wallace at 6-9 and no offensive game has won four DPOY awards in the last 7 years, but Bill Russell would be a role player.

Do you not yet realize how stupid you sound?

No but I realize you have a way with twisting things in an attempt to make me sound stupid.

Im sick of arguining, obviously none of this is getting through to you, but I do have one last question.

When you watch Wilt and Russell play, what are you seeing that you think is so great? What do they do that any big man in today's league can't? All I see is a great defensive player in Russell and a tall guy with no basketball skills shooting over smaller players . What is it that they do that is so great? For gods sake in your mind Wilt had a 50 inch vertical, when in reality he never got very high above then rim. Not to mention you can't seem to find a link to back that statement up. Oh, and he didn't even have a left hand whatsoever. He had decent athleticism, probably a 30 inch vert. Nothing to be ashamed of, alot better than Duncan's alleged 20 or so, but that's it. And then you say that guys like Dwight Howard who can touch the top of the freakin backboard aren't more athletic than players in the 60s. Give me a break. Go back and watch the film, you will see a bunch of unathletic white guys running around with short shorts and a few decent athletes that really stand out and look good just because everyone around them sucks. The game evolves and changes, as the years go by more and more kids play it it gets more popular players train harder and harder and get better starting at younger ages. Not to mention bigger, and you can't argue there it is scientific fact that Americans in general are taller than they were 50 years ago.

[polandprzem]

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.

Wilt was feak of nature back then. it's so scary to imagine how much could the training and medicine of today changed him.
He was the best in the NCAA conference in the heigh jump and he was also a long jump athlete he was also shot putting. In the Globtrotter team he was a PG a 7 foot PG! (The beat up a Mikan Mineapolis back then also)
At the age of 50 some of the NBA clubs wanted to sign him. He was also playing volleyball.

Bill was the best defender that time. Not just he was doing his job on defence but he was freaking smart. He outsmarts EVERYONE who played in the NBA (Ask Frazier, ask Pet ). He was saying that Wilt was ustoppable, that he could just slow him down, never shut down and that he had to use a different game. He used 4 guys on the floor to beat a freak of nature Wilt was. That's called a team game !

Taking about youtube highlights.
It's the argument?
How silly is to look at the old tapes and say they were not dunking so they were no athletic so they would not stand the NBA of today.
Bull all over the place!
First of all you are not winning with athletics. (it's important but not the most important thing). Just look at Bird for excample.
Second the leauge in 70s was more brutal and powerfull and the players were allowed more. Today you can bearly touch another player.
Third point - the rules. Every Kidd, every Kobe every Iverson back in 70s would not be dribbling that well. Why? Cause what they are doing right now was not allowed back in the days. All those crossovers would be whistled out.
Fourth point- No dunks? Wow how's that possible? For one. Back in the days that was a showoff and nobody acceptd that kind of game. So the centers were not using it. Plus it would equal an injury. All the highflyers had problems with the injuries. Just ask Elgin Baylor.
Fith and the most interesting point - how come an inch is worth something? Damn I don't even care how tall Unseld was I care how good he was! I care how strong he was! The bigger doesn't give you a better sex. The mind and vision is what gives good sex even when with a bigger you have more options. The more options does not give you more talent and IQ to use the body ( ) [a penis - to be strict]

Tim made better temas. He was winning more then Hakeem and that what matters cause these are the facts.
KG is a freak of stats but never won a jack. Now you can go by if's ( a better supporters a better coach, a better wife, a longer ) I do not realy care.

Everyone is want to be known as a winner.
That's Jordans words, and he knew he had to grow up and be a team player to win something in this leauge.

As for Shaq?
He was ustoppable in 2000-2002 cause Phil found a way to relese his best qualities. And with the triangle offense he could get a pass in the box from different sides as the ball moved the players moved...

Cheers

[JamStone]

Wilt ... soooooo unathletic:


http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/wilt/article5.html

"Wilt Chamberlain is probably the first giant in history to be able to break 50 seconds in the 440 and win a Big Eight high jump le."

http://www.hickoksports.com/biograph/chamberl.shtml

"Often overlooked is the fact that Chamberlain was an excellent all-around athlete. At Kansas, he was the Big Eight Conference high jump champion three years in a row, he put the shot 56 feet, ran the 100-yard dash in 10.9 seconds, and triple jumped more than 50 feet. He turned down offers to become a professional boxer and football player, but after retiring from basketball he starred in the short-lived International Volleyball Association."

[JamStone]

Also, that darn unathletic Bill Russell ...

http://www.sportsline.com/collegebas.../mul alented

"Bill Russell ranked as the world's No. 7 high jumper in Track and Field News rankings in 1956. Russell won les in the West Coast Relays, Pacific AAU meet and Central California AAU meet in 1956. His winning mark of 6-9 1/4 in the West Coast Relays was the 11th-best mark recorded in the world in 1956. "

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

As he did at Overbrook, Chamberlain again showcased his diverse athletic talent. He ran the 100-yard dash in 10.9 seconds, threw the shotput 56 feet, triple jumped more than 50 feet, and won the high jump in the Big Eight track and field championships three straight years.

Mavs fan is correct. Wilt would have been dominated by Jack Haley. End of discussion.
Wilt Chamberlain Had Your Momma

[JamStone]

http://www.nba.com/warriors/history/...amberlain.html

"But to judge Chamberlain only by his incredible NBA statistics is to miss the boat on the effect he had on sports in general and on just how great an athlete he was. He could also run a 40-yard dash in 4.4 seconds, had a 50-inch vertical jump, was a Big Eight high-jump champion at Kansas, was undefeated in the shot put, but his best track event might have been the 440-yard dash."

Francisco Elson and Andrew Bogut would own Wilt Chamberlain.

[ambchang]

Yes, the game changes and is played alot differently than it was when the league was first founded years ago. That still doesn't change any of my points. Wilt and Russel played in an era with fewer teams, less talent, and less big men. In those days a 7 footer was very rare to see and they were able to dominate their much smaller opponents. They would both be lucky to be role players in today's league.

By the same token ...
The game changes and is played a lot differently than it was in the 90's when Hakkem was playing . Hakeem played in an era with fewer teams, less talent, and less big men. In those days, 7 footers with perimeter skills was very rare to see and Hakeem was able to dominate their much slower opponents. He would be lucky to be a role player in today's league.

Not that I believe any of what was just written, but it just shows how wrong your original opinion could be.

[ambchang]

And Karl Malone is better than Duncan in every aspect except height and the most important intangible, team play and winning. That's why most would give the slight edge to Duncan. Malone was a smart defender, but since he was short for a PF and didn't have long arms he wasn't allowed to play d like Duncan, staying low and not going for any pumpfakes, so Timmy has an edge over him defensively as well. That said, both players > Malone, not sure what point you were trying to make here.

But since Karl Malone was so damned short for a PF, doesn't he gets regularly dominated by his taller opponents, like how the shorter opponents in Russel's days gets dominated by him? Oh wait, you counted Russell as one of those shorties at 6'9" 225 lbs.

[ambchang]

Elliott was still a major contributor that year despite his kidney problems. Don't forget about Robinson who was still able to contribute, at least defensively, and Mario Elie. Remember Sean Elliots miracle shot against Portland, and Avery's game winner in game 5 of the finals? Don't act like Duncan did it all alone. If it wasn't for Elliott, the Spurs go home in game 7 of the West finals.

Also, I did a little research and Mario Elie shot significantly better from the field playing with Olajuwon during their championship years than he did playing with Duncan in 99. Robert Horry shot about the same playing on both teams, so you probably can't use that theory to see who made their teammates better. But I do know that Duncans so called scrubs help him to a great regular season record every year. You can't win 60 games by yourself, the load has to be spread evenly over the coarse of 82 games. I did notice that Olajuwon's Rockets finished a mediocre 47-35 in 94-95, and 48-34 in 95-96. This means that Hakeem really had to step it up in the playoffs in order for his team to win championships. In reality you are backwards it was actually Duncan who has had better teammates.

The logic is so flawed in your arguments. Nobody ever said Duncan scored all 90 or so points for the Spurs, grabbed all 40 or so rebounds and blocked all 6 or 7 of the shots. Nobody said Elliott contributed nothing, but it's a fact that Elliott was not even close to his former all-star self because of age and health issues. Mario Elie shot worse with Duncan at the tail end of his career, so what? Isn't that what most players do, especially when they have to adapt to a new system? Elie actually had his FG% career high with GSW in 92, are you going to say Chris Gatling > Hakeem?

Oh, and Hakeem didn't make the game tying 3 in Game 1, it was Kenny Smith. It was the same way Elliott makes that MDM, perhaps both had the opportunities because their respective HoF big man opened it up for them?

And Horry shot the same he did 10 years ago, good for him! What does that prove?

Finally, the Rockets didn't do very well in the regular season WITH Hakeem in the lineup, in fact, Hakeem only missed 10 games in each of those two seasons, why was he not able to carry his team? A better explanation might be because the Rockets were saving for the playoffs, like what the Lakers did in the early 00's and what the Spurs were doing last year.

[ambchang]

Read it and weep,



http://basketball-players.suite101.c...ate_todays_nba

It's the age-old debate whether or not stars of the yesteryears, like Wilt Chamberlain, would fare in today's NBA game. Some argue, for example, that Wilt Chamberlain was before his time, and that his freakish athleticism could be seen in his great high jumping ability as a Track athlete. Others contend that basketball has reached a new echelon of athletic superiority, where everyone's big and fast.

Throughout his career, Wilt "the Stilt" Chamberlain averaged 30.1 points per game (ppg) and an amazing 22.9 rebounds per game (rbpg). In 1961-62, he did something that nobody may ever be able to do again, averaging 50.4 ppg in 80 games. In the same season, Chamberlain scored 100 points in a single game.

In addition, Wilt won the scoring le in each of his first seven seasons and led the league in rebounding 11 times. He is the only center to lead the league in assists, and never fouled out in his career.

Perhaps the most unusual statistic of all, Chamberlain actually averaged more than 48 minutes per game in a season. In 1961-62, his Philadelphia Warriors played in ten overtime quarters, and he played in all but eight of a possible 3,980 minutes that season.

Yet, the question still remains whether Wilt could have dominated in today's NBA game.

Consider that by the end of his career, Chamberlain was listed as about 7-1 275lbs, which is considerably large by even today's standards.

Now consider that the bulk of his compe ion at the center position was significantly smaller than he was. There's a lot of hoopla surrounding the Wilt Chamberlain versus Bill Russell matchup. Yet, Russell was only listed as 6-9 to 6-10 220lbs. Another Hall of Famer, Dave Cowens, was listed as 6-8 230lbs. Wes Unseld was only listed at about 6-6 to 6-7, and Willis Reed was only 6-9 240lbs. Of course, one could say that Shaquille O'Neal is much larger than most of his opponents, but the fact was, Chamberlain dwarfed everybody, where O'Neal is at least used to frequently facing other seven footers.
With modern advances in weight lifting programs and physical fitness, it's silly to think that a player in the 1960s could compare to a player in 2007, where the size of a lot of perimeter players and even shooting guards is larger than the typical center of that era. Moreover, players were not paid a fraction as much back then as they are now, making the incentive to get in the best shape possible not as high.

Watching game tapes of Chamberlain make it apparent that his slow speed and lack of a left hand wouldn't get him very far in today's game. This is not to say that he couldn't have been a great player had he developed in this era, with the advantages of modern nutrition, weight programs, etc... It only means that taking players out of their era and comparing them to players of a different era is pointless and unfair.

Wilt Chamberlain was one of the most dominant players to play in one period, but if taken out of that era and placed into today's NBA game, Wilt's skill would have been lacking and he would not have been able to rely so much on his size.

So how did Bill Russell dominate all the other centers in that era? By being the same size as them? Mourning was 6'10", Hakeem, despite being listed 7'0", was way closer to 6'10", Yao Ming is taller than everybody else, slow, and doesn't have a left hand. Isn't he an all-star now? Why is he not averaging 30 ppg and hauling down 27 rpg despite his incredible size advantage? What about Mark Eaton in the late 80s? Wasn't he much bigger than everybody else?
You remember Stanley Roberts? He was as big as Shaq, where is he now? What does size have to do with basketball skills?

[ambchang]

Lmao he hasn't owned anyone except the entire English language, homer. And I'm not on a polish message board lecturing people about handball or whatever the it is they play over there. I have made 2 points here and they stand untill proven otherwise.
1. Wilt and Bill wouldn't be such a dominant forces in today's league full of bigger and more athletic and talented players.
2. Put Hakeem on the Spurs in place of Duncan, and they still have at least 4 rings probably 5-7.

Taking both sides of the ball into consideration, Hakeem was the most dominant player besides Jordan in the new era.

Why would they stand until proven otherwise? Because you made them?
Why would Hakeem have won 5 to 7 rings if he swapped careers with Duncan? If you proposed a theory, it is YOUR job to prove it, not somebody else's to disprove it.

Ditto for the older players suck argument. As Barkley, Iverson, Gheorge Muresan, Marco Jaric, Stanley Roberts, and others have shown over the years, there is absolutely no correlation between size relative to positions played and success. The onus is on you to prove that it does.

[ambchang]

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)

http://ask.metafilter.com/54144/Is-he-really-that-tall

It's a long running joke that Hakeem Olajuwon is nowhere near (like 2-3 inches away from) the 7 feet he is listed at by the NBA. I've head numerous play-by-play and color guys comment on this on the air.

http://www.celebheights.com/s/Allen-Iverson-1232.html
http://www.celebheights.com/s/Shaquille-ONeal-3142.html

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.

So genetics changed in 40 years? Are we in the age of X-men?
And I am sure you are aware that the rule for not having FT shooters cross the FT line after a shot is because of Wilt, right?
http://espn.go.com/nba/news/1999/1012/110493.html
http://espn.go.com/nba/news/1999/1012/110842.html

Years ago, teams could pass the ball over the backboard or take a running start when attempting a foul shot. The former was outlawed because Chamberlain would use the backboard as a screen, cherry-picking passes and converting them into layups; the latter was banned after Chamberlain took a running start, leapt from the foul line and dunked the ball.
Yes, Chamberlain dunked foul shots.

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.

And once again, please find me any correlation with size relative to position and success in the NBA. For every Shaq, there’s a Stanley Roberts, or every Iverson, there’s a Chris Jackson.

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.

Duncan can’t jump, he aveages 2 blocks a game. And he blocked Amare. Blocking shots has a LOT more to do with timing and coordination. Speaking of which, how many blocks did jumping jack Amare average last year and in his career?

Wrong

Certainly had people in the grips of reason …..

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.

Again, why? You ridicule others for being the “height regulator”, despite wide-spread knowledge of height exaggeration in today’s league, and yet you continue to through out opinions after opinions as facts, and force the onus to disprove on others.

[ambchang]

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".

The Spurs won in spite of Amare dominating, because the Spurs offense dominated the series. Manu was really the difference that series, especially in the closing minutes of deciding games.

Amare won the individual matchup between the 2 stars but Duncan's supporting cast dominated. Nash was played to a standstill by Parker that series and Manu was unstoppable. Bowen also completely shut down Marion.

Giving Duncan all the credit for the Spurs team success is just getting out of control. He was clearly outplayed that series.

No it is not absurd, the Suns did that with Jordan in 93, it backfired and destroyed them. The Spurs concentrated on stopping Nash and not Amare because they recognized it was Nash who drove the Suns offense, and it worked.
And no, Duncan did fine himself in the 05 playoffs vs. the Suns, he averaged something like 32 and 16.

[ambchang]

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.

Your lack of knowledge on NBA legends is disturbing. If you would like to bash the likes of Wilt, first learn about him.
He was an outstanding track and fielder, and his specialty was high jump and won the Big Eight tourney by clearing a 6’6” bar.
Second, your lack of mathematical skills is absolutely deplorable. At 7’ tall, a 48” (4 foot) jump would only have Chamberlain a foot about the rim, not his entire upper body, what is so ridiculous about that? Shawn Kemp required s ches after hitting his face on the rim. Robinson, at 7’1”, had a 40” vertical.

[mavs>spurs2]

Your lack of knowledge on NBA legends is disturbing. If you would like to bash the likes of Wilt, first learn about him.
He was an outstanding track and fielder, and his specialty was high jump and won the Big Eight tourney by clearing a 6’6” bar.
Second, your lack of mathematical skills is absolutely deplorable. At 7’ tall, a 48” (4 foot) jump would only have Chamberlain a foot about the rim, not his entire upper body, what is so ridiculous about that? Shawn Kemp required s ches after hitting his face on the rim. Robinson, at 7’1”, had a 40” vertical.

You're a dumbass. I am 5'11 and can almost get a foot above the rim with a 35 inch vertical. Vince Carter is 6ft 5, has a 48 inch vert, and I have seen him get head and shoulders above the rim. Wilt would have his entire upper body above the rim if his vertical was really as high as VCs, given that he was 8 inches taller.

[mavs>spurs2]

And my arguement wasn't so much that Wilt and Bill weren't athletic, it was that they were the only 2 athletic players in a totally different era. They were ahead of their time, dominating a bunch of short unathletic white guys in short shorts. (a bit of an exaggeration)

In today's league, where everyone is just as athletic or more, they wouldn't succeed with their skillsets. Wilt couldn't even use his left hand. He would never score 100 points in today's NBA. Even Jordan couldn't do that, and hopefully we can please agree that he is the best player of all time. Russell would probably be a Dennis Rodman type player, but not one of the most dominant big men ever.

And I am at school and don't have the time to read all of your posts, but I did catch your Stanley Roberts argument. For every big guy in todays league that sucks, there was a 6ft 7 center that sucked back in Wilt's day.

[BronxCowboy]

You're a dumbass. I am 5'11 and can almost get a foot above the rim with a 35 inch vertical. Vince Carter is 6ft 5, has a 48 inch vert, and I have seen him get head and shoulders above the rim. Wilt would have his entire upper body above the rim if his vertical was really as high as VCs, given that he was 8 inches taller.

5'11" + 35"= 8'10"
Rim=10' 0"
10'>8'10"

And you insult the intelligence of others? Stay in school.

[JamStone]

5'11" + 35"= 8'10"
Rim=10' 0"
10'>8'10"

And you insult the intelligence of others? Stay in school.

LMAO ... hurry up and erase your post. It's not his height but his hand (reach) that you would add to the vertical. A 5-11 person would reach about 7-11 with a standing reach. You add 35 inches to 7-foot-11.

[mavs>spurs2]

5'11" + 35"= 8'10"
Rim=10' 0"
10'>8'10"

And you insult the intelligence of others? Stay in school.

I do have arms. Long arms. My wingspan is that of a 6ft 2 person. My reach is 7ft 6.

7ft6 + 35 inches = 10 foot 5 inches.

And that's just flat footed, common sense tells you a running start allows you to jump alot higher.

off

[mardigan]

I do have arms. Long arms. My wingspan is that of a 6ft 2 person. My reach is 7ft 6.

7ft6 + 35 inches = 10 foot 5 inches.

And that's just flat footed, common sense tells you a running start allows you to jump alot higher.

off

No point in insulting when your wrong bro.
What dont you understand about 7 feet lus 4 feet equals 11 feet, 1 foot above the rim. Meaning his head would have cleared the rim. Not that hard to understand hops