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

[ambchang]

Dude - you seem to be taking this (and yourself) way too seriously. It's an internet message board. Relax.

If I didn’t know any better, I thought it was you who wrote essays after essays in this thread.

And are you trying to critique my way of forming an opinion on an internet board? Am I not allowed to take this personally? Have I violated your personal values by doing so?

You still haven't convinced me that Wilt was more athletic than Dwight and David (and hakkem and Shaq, for that matter). I readily admit I can;t convince you surely of my argument, but that's why it's a discussin, bro. people come in and give their takes and take what they will from it. I'm not a fan of forums becoming like the youtube comments section, where it's all dumb personal attacks, that get way off topic. (KBP seems to love that) Your attacking my level of knowledge really doesn't address the topic.

My goal never was to convince you about the athletic prowess of Wilt. How can I convince anyone who can form an opinion, and seem to have a strong stance, on a topic s/he readily admits s/he knows nothing about?

If you want to form an opinion, whether a basketball forum or anywhere else, it would help that you read up on what you are forming an opinion on. Or else you would turn this forum into a place you are not a fan of, namely a place like the youtube comments section, where ignorant people mouth off on topics they have no knowledge upon.

Despite the tenor of my original post, I do have an appreciation, and have watched a fair amount of pre-1980's to curent era basketball . Suffice it to say, the league has become increasingly athletic from its inception to now. You seem to be very dismissive of that. The game is more above the rim than it used to be. I know that doesn't cover all facets of what one may call "athleticism" as far as basketball goes, but it is a major indicator of the athleticism in the game.

For every Stoudemire, there is a Duncan, for every LeBron James, there is a Roy.

The fact that ESPN chooses to show highlight dunks after highlights dunks doesn’t mean that highlight dunks are the only thing that happens in the game. Some players in the 60’s were born athletic freaks (Wilt, Elgin Baylor, Elvin Hayes, etc …). Sure they didn’t have the level of nutrition and training that athletes have today, but that doesn’t have anything to do with athletic ability but more so with training.

I dont disagree that Jabaar was fluid, had an ARSENAL of moves, and was one of the best of al time, but he didn't depend on his athleticism. I don't think many people would try to argue that he was even in the top five in centers in terms of athletic ability. Neither did Hakeem, although it is my opinion that he was more athletic than Jabaar. If you go back and watch the game footage, you will see that he had a lot more lift than Jabaar.

If you want to argue jumping ability as the sole indicator of athletic ability, then this is your definition. To me, athletic ability is a combination of many things, and fluidity and agility is definitely one of them.

It wasn't my argument that Wilt was not athletic. I think you read a little more in my post than what I said, although my tone was admittedly dismissive of the "old league" I responded to the hyperbole that Wilt was "twice as athletic as David and Dwight combined" with the hyperbole that Shaq would have scored 200. That was in jest, which sometimes is difficult to convey in text, but I do believe that against the same compe ion, Shaq could easily have matched or exceeded Wilt's production.

Shaq had trouble scoring as many points as Allen Iverson during his prime, and only led the league in scoring once. While most of this is because he cruises during the regular season, his accomplishments around scoring are not unmatched in his own era. Wilt on the other hand, blew his compe ion out of the water.

Realistically, you can't quantify these guys athleticism to make one empirically researched conclusion as to who was the most athletic, and I don't rule wilt out if this (subjective) discussion. Out of the players discussed, I'd say Dwight, David, Wilt, Hakeem, and Shaq are the top candidates. I don't think any of those five clearly stands out against the others. But I reserve the right to form an opinion, no matter what degree of knowledge I have, and afford you the same.

As long as your opinion is formed through knowledge and research. This culture of en lement is destructive and pointless. You can form an opinion and refuse to accept other points of view, and in some cases, deride them, but that brings nothing to the table, and makes a mockery out of the use of freedom.

I can opine that the earth is flat, and then make fun of all those who say the earth is round(ish) despite evidence to the contrary, but that would only make me look like a fool.

If we take this further and include all big men, who else might figure into the discussion? Shawn Kemp? Karl Malone? Who else am I missing?

Karl Malone is most definitely not one of the most athletic big man of all time, other than being strong and somewhat coordinated, he couldn’t jump, is not particularly fast, not fluid nor agile.

There are the Stromile Swifts, Connie Hawkins. But Wilt clearly stands heads and shoulders above everyone else based on the arguments already put forth in this thread.

[4down]

If I didn’t know any better, I thought it was you who wrote essays after essays in this thread.

And are you trying to critique my way of forming an opinion on an internet board? Am I not allowed to take this personally? Have I violated your personal values by doing so?



My goal never was to convince you about the athletic prowess of Wilt. How can I convince anyone who can form an opinion, and seem to have a strong stance, on a topic s/he readily admits s/he knows nothing about?

If you want to form an opinion, whether a basketball forum or anywhere else, it would help that you read up on what you are forming an opinion on. Or else you would turn this forum into a place you are not a fan of, namely a place like the youtube comments section, where ignorant people mouth off on topics they have no knowledge upon.



For every Stoudemire, there is a Duncan, for every LeBron James, there is a Roy.

The fact that ESPN chooses to show highlight dunks after highlights dunks doesn’t mean that highlight dunks are the only thing that happens in the game. Some players in the 60’s were born athletic freaks (Wilt, Elgin Baylor, Elvin Hayes, etc …). Sure they didn’t have the level of nutrition and training that athletes have today, but that doesn’t have anything to do with athletic ability but more so with training.



If you want to argue jumping ability as the sole indicator of athletic ability, then this is your definition. To me, athletic ability is a combination of many things, and fluidity and agility is definitely one of them.



Shaq had trouble scoring as many points as Allen Iverson during his prime, and only led the league in scoring once. While most of this is because he cruises during the regular season, his accomplishments around scoring are not unmatched in his own era. Wilt on the other hand, blew his compe ion out of the water.


As long as your opinion is formed through knowledge and research. This culture of en lement is destructive and pointless. You can form an opinion and refuse to accept other points of view, and in some cases, deride them, but that brings nothing to the table, and makes a mockery out of the use of freedom.

I can opine that the earth is flat, and then make fun of all those who say the earth is round(ish) despite evidence to the contrary, but that would only make me look like a fool.



Karl Malone is most definitely not one of the most athletic big man of all time, other than being strong and somewhat coordinated, he couldn’t jump, is not particularly fast, not fluid nor agile.

There are the Stromile Swifts, Connie Hawkins. But Wilt clearly stands heads and shoulders above everyone else based on the arguments already put forth in this thread.

Never said I know nothing about it - that was your assumption. I only said I hadn;t watched all the Wilt film. appreciate your takes though.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

David.




Next.

[Fpoonsie]

Yeah, there's a couple of jumpshots in here:

Can I still call myself a hetero male after repeatedly fighting the desire to fap it to this vid?

[ambchang]

Never said I know nothing about it - that was your assumption. I only said I hadn;t watched all the Wilt film. appreciate your takes though.

I am not sure how else I could have taken this:

I'm too young to know how great Wilt was, but that's besides the point.

Or this:

Seriously, Wilt being so great was like Barry Bonds playing against a team of Honus Wagner clones. He's still great, but the crappiness of those around him makes him look that much better.

I didn't mean to offend, but from your first post, you are basically flashing an "I am ignorant, but still want to put in my two cents" sign.

Most people on this board are probably not old enough to have watched Wilt at his peak, but get some game and highlight tapes.

[4down]

I am not sure how else I could have taken this:



Or this:



I didn't mean to offend, but from your first post, you are basically flashing an "I am ignorant, but still want to put in my two cents" sign.

Most people on this board are probably not old enough to have watched Wilt at his peak, but get some game and highlight tapes.

Yeah, I get ya - I think Wilt was great, and while I have seen some film, it is a limited set of examples of Wilt's athleticism compared to what I've seen of Robinson, Olajuwon, Jabaar, etc - I really do believe that Wilt played against compe ion that made him look a little better, because he 'only' had Bill Russell and a few others to contend with. Compare that to the mid to late 80's and 90's where there were a litany of athletic bigs, and you might be able to see it's not as cut and dry as some would try to purport. Too bad NBA live or some other computer generated platform is the only way we'll have been able to see a matchup between all those guys play out.

[JamStone]

Then we should discredit Shaq and Duncan for their championships. Because when they started winning les until now, the number of quality low post big men in the league has probably been the worst in the history of the game.

[Cry Havoc]

I am not sure how else I could have taken this:



Or this:



I didn't mean to offend, but from your first post, you are basically flashing an "I am ignorant, but still want to put in my two cents" sign.

Most people on this board are probably not old enough to have watched Wilt at his peak, but get some game and highlight tapes.

Don't you think that kind of at ude precludes most of ST from participating in a discussion, though?

I mean, I see both points of the issue. Wilt was amazing and would definitely be dominant today, but to suggest his compe ion was tough in the 60s when even good teams from the 80s would get killed today by teams that play defense for the full 48 up and down the court is kind of silly.

However, if you tell people they can't put their opinion in because they're too young, well, I'm not sure if that gives much room to anyone. Someone could sign up here who's seen Wilt play in person 30 or 40 times over his career, but does that mean no one can argue with him? People can be wrong. I've seen Wilt play on video. He was incredible. But to say he was a head and shoulders above a prime Hakeem, Shaq, or David? I don't think you can CLEARLY say that, since there is no evidence. And listing the height of big men in the 60s is not sufficient evidence to say he played against tough compe ion. Wilt was known as a giant in the day by both skill AND size. Yao Ming would have frightened people in the 60s and been regarded as more of a freak show than a basketball player.

[Cry Havoc]

Then we should discredit Shaq and Duncan for their championships. Because when they started winning les until now, the number of quality low post big men in the league has probably been the worst in the history of the game.

Do you think the argument could be made that there is now much more skilled players at the guard position, which is making centers that might have been viewed as dominant less so, because the game has become so much more focused on the perimeter? I'm not saying this is the case, I'm just throwing some conjecture out there that the league is insanely deep with 6'5-6'7 guards that have much more ability to get into the lane than at any other point in NBA history, so centers might have lost value as the game increases in speed and shifts offensively to a more open offense.

[ambchang]

People can certainly make opinions on subjects they have little knowledge on, but that adds little to the discussion. I have not tryed to censor people on the board, that alone defeats the purpose of having a discussion board, I am merely put off by people who discredits the history of the game by taking a simple, myopic view on a subject.

And I absolutely disagreed with the notion that teams in the 80's would be killed by teams of today. They played under a totally different set of rules, were exposed to a different playing scheme, and didn't have the luxuries of learning about the advances in team basketball for the last 20 years.

Is Einstein a lesser scientist than Hawkings? Hawkings knew everything that Einstein came up with, but added new research of his own, but it's doubtful that Hawkings could ever came up with what something as revolutionary as Einstein did during his days.

A similar parallel could be drawn for basketball players. LeBron James learned from Kobe, who learned from Jordan, who learned from Dr. J, who learned from David Thompson, who learned from Elgin Baylor. Earlier players came up with creative moves and raised the bar, and later players built on that. Nobody since Wilt opened up the game of basketball Wilt did, strictly from an athletic front, until probably about Robinson and Hakeem entered the game.

BTW, the 60's had great centers in Russell, Thurmond, and then later Unseld and Jabbar. The center position had sucked for the last decade or so, partly because of rule changes that caters to perimeter oriented players, but also because the decrease in skills in the position.

There hasn't been a dominant big man drafted since Duncan in 97. That is a 12 year drought of subpar big man. While Ming and Howard are good, they are unlikely to achieve the status of big man such as Wilt, Jabbar, Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, or Robinson. We are looking at the Ewings or and the Unselds, who are, while great, are not legendary.

[Cry Havoc]

People can certainly make opinions on subjects they have little knowledge on, but that adds little to the discussion. I have not tryed to censor people on the board, that alone defeats the purpose of having a discussion board, I am merely put off by people who discredits the history of the game by taking a simple, myopic view on a subject.

A fair point, and I agree. However, I'm not sure just simply stating that Wilt > everyone else is an unassailable comment, either.

And I absolutely disagreed with the notion that teams in the 80's would be killed by teams of today. They played under a totally different set of rules, were exposed to a different playing scheme, and didn't have the luxuries of learning about the advances in team basketball for the last 20 years.

Okay, I understand the advances, but when I watch NBA FINALS games from the 80s, which are usually the two best teams playing, I see defenders sagging back and giving wide open jumpshots to other players, 15-18 feet from the hoop with staggering regularity! I see lazy, half-effort defense everywhere! The offense is spectacular, but this is the Finals! To say nothing of the regular season. Do that in today's NBA, and you're going to get killed.

Is Einstein a lesser scientist than Hawkings? Hawkings knew everything that Einstein came up with, but added new research of his own, but it's doubtful that Hawkings could ever came up with what something as revolutionary as Einstein did during his days.

A similar parallel could be drawn for basketball players. LeBron James learned from Kobe, who learned from Jordan, who learned from Dr. J, who learned from David Thompson, who learned from Elgin Baylor. Earlier players came up with creative moves and raised the bar, and later players built on that. Nobody since Wilt opened up the game of basketball Wilt did, strictly from an athletic front, until probably about Robinson and Hakeem entered the game.

I'm not sure you can draw such parallels between a science and a sport. For starters, science relies on empiric knowledge of experiments and knowledge performed beforehand. Basketball does not. Unless you'd care to explain Tim Duncan, who was never really interested in basketball and certainly wasn't a student of the game, walking onto Wake Forest as a freshman and dominating the varsity players from day 1?

The counter to your argument is thus: If Wilt was the first truly dominant bigman of the game, then other players are limited by him, because he was the first. Just like Hawking is unable to make a discovery like relativity, because of the fact that science is more nuanced today than in the past, today's players are unable to make the drastic leap forward in ability/production that Wilt did, and therefore, no matter how great they are, will not be looked upon the same as he was, rendering any comparisons moot and biased by their very nature.

BTW, the 60's had great centers in Russell, Thurmond, and then later Unseld and Jabbar. The center position had sucked for the last decade or so, partly because of rule changes that caters to perimeter oriented players, but also because the decrease in skills in the position.

The idea remains that if you insert David Robinson or Hakeem into the 60s, they probably would have been absolutely unstoppable, much like Hakeem was.

There hasn't been a dominant big man drafted since Duncan in 97. That is a 12 year drought of subpar big man. While Ming and Howard are good, they are unlikely to achieve the status of big man such as Wilt, Jabbar, Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, or Robinson. We are looking at the Ewings or and the Unselds, who are, while great, are not legendary.

Howard could still get there. He needs to add polish to his offensive game, but if he develops a mid-range jumper and improves his footwork, he could be a nightmare for other teams.

[4down]

A fair point, and I agree. However, I'm not sure just simply stating that Wilt > everyone else is an unassailable comment, either.


Okay, I understand the advances, but when I watch NBA FINALS games from the 80s, which are usually the two best teams playing, I see defenders sagging back and giving wide open jumpshots to other players, 15-18 feet from the hoop with staggering regularity. To say nothing of the regular season. Do that in today's NBA, and you're going to get killed.


I'm not sure you can draw such parallels between a science and a sport. For starters, science relies on empiric knowledge of experiments and knowledge performed beforehand. Basketball does not. Unless you'd care to explain Tim Duncan, who was never really interested in basketball and certainly wasn't a student of the game, walking onto Wake Forest as a freshman and dominating the varsity players from day 1?

The counter to your argument is thus: If Wilt was the first truly dominant bigman of the game, then other players are limited by him, because he was the first. Just like Hawking is unable to make a discovery like relativity, because of the fact that science is more nuanced today than in the past, today's players are unable to make the drastic leap forward in ability/production that Wilt did, and therefore, no matter how great they are, will not be looked upon the same as he was, rendering any comparisons moot and biased by their very nature.



The idea remains that if you insert David Robinson or Hakeem into the 60s, they probably would have been absolutely unstoppable, much like Hakeem was.



Howard could still get there. He needs to add polish to his offensive game, but if he develops a mid-range jumper and improves his footwork, he could be a nightmare for other teams.

Exactcly. Cars are faster and more responsive now too than in the 50's and 60's and that is because these great scientists, standing on the shoulders of the right giants, have figured out ways to improve at increasingly impressive rates. It's a flawed argument though - apples and oranges.

awesome that we can appreciate the legends of old as well as the greatness we get to see live and up close in real time.

The idea that Howard may not get there may be true, but it is also true that Wilt was like Gulliver among the Lilliputians, whereas Howard has a lot of athleticism overall to contend with. Not to say the guys in the past were chopped liver, just that in terms of pure athleticism, the league has improved as a whole. Wilt was a giant among men. I won't fault him for that, but I'd like to see just how well all these greats would have fared amongst each other, and think it would have been a lot closer than some think.

Glad to see this evolving back into a basketball discussion, sort of.

I can't wait for the season to start.

[howbouthemspurs]

Wilt was far beyond his generation. I think he would still have those gaudy numbers in todays NBA. He is in a catagory all his own that no one will ever reach.

But I still think David Robinson was more athletic than WIlt. But that's just me.

[Brutalis]

Um, no disrespect but DRob would be schooling the out of Dwight pre back injury.

[ohmwrecker]

First of all, the question is between Robinson (in his prime) and Howard (now). The answer is, obviously, Robinson. I don't know how Wilt and Hakeem got in this conversation, but you might as well throw Bill Russell in there too. Russell was Wilt's greatest opponent in his prime and a pretty stellar athlete in his time.

[Spursone]

First of all we are assuming in the question that Howard and Robinson are the most atheletic centers of all time. Assuming that premis I would say unequivically Robinson over Howard. Robinson was a beast, passionate, had foot work, could block, great rebounder, LEADER, and most of all he could shoot. 73 points in a game! I don't think Howard's offense comes close to Robinson's.

I still think that Akeem Olajawon was still a better center than Robinson or Howard. He was one of the last Centers that actually played the post position.

Go Spurs Go!l

[Cry Havoc]

I decided to search in my Wilt book "A View From Above" for a picture of Wilt's athletic ability and this is the best out of the ones I found. It is around a 50 to 55 inch verticle on a warm up standing jump when Wilt is not at his highest point.

First of all... wtf is wrong with his head? Does he emit an angelic glow that blocks out some of the stadium?

I'm not attempting to start an argument here, but I found this quote from Wilt:

"What's unfortunate is that most people regard the great leapers as being only the short guys who could dunk," said the 7-1 1/16 Wilt Chamberlain. "My sergeant [vertical leap] was higher than Michael Jordan's. When I went to Kansas, they had a 12-foot basket in the gym, because Dr. Phog Allen was advocating the 12-foot basket. I used to dunk on that basket. It was an effort, but I could do it."

Now, this is interesting. Because if we are to assume Wilt has a standing reach of 9'6", and can jump 54" into the air from a standstill, that puts the top of his hands at his jump right at 14' (we can assume maybe 3-4" higher at least, with a running start). This means if he can really jump that high, he would be almost head-level with a 12 foot rim. It would be almost effortless for him to dunk on a 12 foot hoop, if his claims about his leaping are to be believed. It also means that he could probably be almost stomach level or better with a standard rim, from a flat-footed jump. And yet he never did anything of the sort while on the court, whether it be in a game or showing off.

When the best athlete in the NBA today probably cannot vertical over 45", I have to question the consistency here. A 54+" flat-footed vertical is unheard of.

- * Wilt Chamberlain claims that his sergeant, during his prime, was "46 to 48 inches, easy." [2]

Again a discrepancy. And least of all, that photograph is EXTREMELY suspect. Old pictures were doctored all the time, even before photoshop.

I'm not attempting to call Chamberlain's greatness into question, but I'm just miffed as to the differences here.

[elbamba]

I can go on about Wilt, so I will.

Just to bring something up, Wilt still hold the records for minutes per game in a season and in a career. No one will ikely ever break either, especially the minutes per game in a season.

Cy Young has pitching records that will never be touched, do you think he could do it today?

[whottt]

I don't know where everyone is getting this angle that Howard is a slam dunk in the strength department over the Admiral...the Admiral was the only guy in the league that could defend Shaq and hold him to mortal numbers. Which he did right up to the very last season of his career.

Upperbodywise Howard's got a good set of shoulders on him...but get ing serious, he doesn't have the guns Drob did. Takes incredible arm strength to do a handstand( go do it even if you don't believe me, and you probably won't be lifting 250 like the Admiral was), even more to do it the length of a basketball court.


Hakeem was a great defender but his offense was very much a part of his defense(I don't mean drawing fouls like Drob did it), I mean he flat out wore people out with his offense and didn't leave them much left for their own offense, plus he had very quick hands that produced a load of steal for a bigman...Honestly, Hakeem's game was pretty much a twin of Duncan's, kicked peoples asses with his scoring skill, played great team D...just sub the bank shot for the for the Dream Shake. And Hakeem had quicker hands whereas I think Duncan is stronger than Hakeem was.

Drob OTOH was a one on one physical mismatch for any player in the league...there was no bigman faster than he was, and Shaq was about the only guy stronger. It took multiple players to stop Drob...yes he could be stopped by a physical doubleteam(usually because the fouls weren't getting called due to all the bodies surrounding him) more easily than Duncan or Hakeem, but he could beat a one on one matchup with his speed like no other bigman other than maybe Shaq utilizing his strength.


Drob won a scoring le...and his scoring was the weakest part of his game. And he didn't win that scoring le because he spent 10 hours a day in the gym polishing his game from JR high on...

They just gave his ass the basketball a bunch and he just ing did it...

Because he ing could. Simple as that.

He was the first C in 20 or so years do it...and he and Wilt are the only C's to ever put up 70+points in a game. And unlike Drob, offense was the best part of Wilt's game.


Think about that for a second.

[Cry Havoc]

When Wilt dunked in game it was mostly off 1 step a dribble and a man between him and the basket. That might be what he meant by an effort. However in Wilt's book he had pictures that show he is clearly above 50 inches from the ground and he talks about his amazing jumping ability a few times. In another book there are two stories that come to mind.

One is when Wilt was bet $50 that he couldn't grab a quarter off the top of the back board. Wilt asked for a quarter, walked up to a basket took 1 step an placed the quarter on top of the back board. Then when he landed he quickly sprang back up and grabed the quarter.

Another was when he was coaching in the aba in his late 30s and a practice ball got stuck above the back board. None of these great athletes (one of which was rumored he could touch the top pf back boards) could reach the ball stuck about 14 feet in the air. So Wilt took off his nice leather shoes and knocked the ball out.

Basically what Wilt is saying is that he could, without running, vertical high enough to put his wrist above the top of a backboard.

Sorry, I just don't see that as being humanly possible. People exaggerated all the time back then, and if it sold tickets, why wouldn't they? There were no standards for measuring jumps back then, at least none were officially measured. I'm going to need a lot more than hearsay and sketchy photographs to back up a 7'1" player claiming that he could out jump pretty much every other human being on the planet from a flat-footed position.

[whottt]

Basically what Wilt is saying is that he could, without running, vertical high enough to put his wrist above the top of a backboard.

Sorry, I just don't see that as being humanly possible. People exaggerated all the time back then, and if it sold tickets, why wouldn't they? There were no standards for measuring jumps back then, at least none were officially measured. I'm going to need a lot more than hearsay and sketchy photographs to back up a 7'1" player claiming that he could out jump pretty much every other human being on the planet from a flat-footed position.

You do realize Wilt was a high jump champion in the big 8 right, in track?

I actually do believe Wilt could jump higher(in terms of actual hight reached if not distance from the ground) than any body on planet standing, as there aren't many 7' high jump champions. In fact Wilt may be the only one in history. There is a certain mechanics to jumping...


I remember watching this 40 year old man on American Gladiators once upon a time...they had this bungee jumping event where you had to grab velcroed balls off a pole in the middle of the arena...the highest level was red, second highest was white, lowest level was blue...

I watched that event hundreds of times and saw a contender or two barely manage to get maybe one or two of those red balls in all of those times I watched it...took what seemed to be superhuman effort to grab one just barely with their finger tips.

The day this 40 year old man was in the event he pretty much cleaned the whole ing level of red balls...on his very first jump, grabbed like 4 of them, it was like he was from a different planet...and he was just averaged size guy, maybe 6', maybe 170lbs. Looked every bit of 40 years old.

Turned out he was a former Olympic Pole vaulter(was never even champion)...but what he did was completely unnatural looking, he just knew how to jump. Wilt did too...

[Chieflion]

If basketball did not exist back then, and track was available for Wilt, he might have done all the inhuman things in track, looking at old clips and all.

[whottt]

I'd put any amount of money on it though that Wilt couldn't walk the length of basketball court on his hands. And even though he looks pretty fast in the video I have seen...he doesn't look as fast Drob does. It's entirely possible that Drob was the fastest player in the NBA early in his career. He was faster than AJ...and AJ was fast.

Pretty sure he could beat Tony Parker in windsprints in his final year in the league(I'm pretty sure I've heard Tony or Pop mention that before).

I do not think it's out of the question that the Admiral was the better athlete of the two...I'm not saying I'm certain like I am with other bigman to ever play, but I do think it's possible...

Since Shoogar is the only one that's actually seen Wilt play I give his opinion some weight...but he's not exactly known for his staunch past defenses of the Admiral.

All I know is that the Admiral is probably the best athlete I've seen in my lifetime, in any sport, definitely in basketball, 7 footer or not.

Michael Jordan is not the best athlete and he's usually the one people throw out there...the best athlete wouldn't hit at the Mendoza line playing minor league ball.

[whottt]

Howard should never be mentioned in any category with Robinson. Wilt, then Hakeem were the most athletic. I'd put a David behind them.

And you are quite simply on dangerous amounts of crack if you think Hakeem was a better athlete than Drob was. Hakeem had about the same level of athleticism as Tim Duncan. Duncan might even be more athletic, and he's been playing on one knee since the 2000 season.

[Cry Havoc]

And you are quite simply on dangerous amounts of crack if you think Hakeem was a better athlete than Drob was. Hakeem had about the same level of athleticism as Tim Duncan. Duncan might even be more athletic, and he's been playing on one knee since the 2000 season.

Dude, consider who posted that, and then ask yourself if he's ever had a solid, legitimate, unbiased take on anything.