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

[JamStone]

Video is more conclusive than folktales.

Since when was a person's weight a folktale?

[Cry Havoc]

I said women generally don't have much upperbody strength, their strength is usually concentrated in their legs, espcially gymnasts.

I can see why you took it the way you did, but I didn't really say what you think I did.


Let me put it another way..

Female gymnasts definitely have more upperbody strength than the typical woman, as evidenced by the handstands they can do on the balance beam among other things, but they still don't have much upperbody strength compared to a typical man, and they are absolutely beyond all doubt stronger in their legs than their upperbody.

Please try to do an uneven bar routine and then say how weak in the upper body female gymnasts are. If guys are SO much stronger it shouldn't be a problem for them, and most men would not even be able to get themselves to do a full rotation on the bar. I'm willing to bet an average female level 10 gymnast could do more pull-ups than 95% of men.

How many people do you know are stronger in their upper body than their legs, anyway? I'm about 165 pounds and I bench 200, but I leg press 650, because legs are obviously bigger muscles.

Saying "women are weak to men" is kind of a ridiculous argument to make, because a lot of measured strength is focused in raw weight. I'm sure the average 5'11" 280 pound man who's extremely obese can probably bench press more than me, but to say a 280 pound man can outbench me is a silly comparison to make in the first place. Sure, he's stronger, but that added strength is pointless because it's rooted in the mass of his weight.

[whottt]

Saying "women are weak to men" is kind of a ridiculous argument to make, because a lot of measured strength is focused in raw weight.

Every shred of medical or scientific evidence will back that statement, every weightlifting record will confirm it...the entire recorded history of -sapiens dating back 200,000+ years in which there is not a single example in which women were the primary hunters in any known organized society, reinforces it...not to mention those things called balls that most men have that produce the hormone the body uses to build muscle at about 50 times the level it is produced in women.

It's fact their muscle lies differently, it's a fact their blood flows differently. And that blood flow is definitely a factor in how long they could do a handstand and walk on it.



Edit: I'm not interested in continuing this argument...I hope it gets you laid.

[whottt]

Since when was a person's weight a folktale?

As conclusive as suggesting you can look at old videos and each of their respective physiques and simply conclude Robinson is as strong or stronger than Wilt.

There's nothing in that statement about weight, and the not conclusive statement was made in response to you saying because Wilt weighs more his mass gave him more strength.


I don't see anyone arguing abut someone's weight. Wilt weighed more. There's no evidence he was stronger than Drob...the only evidence suggests Drob was probably stronger.


And btw, I don't know if you looked into this or not, but again I'll repeat that gymnasts hardly ever lift weights, hardly ever, and I'm willing to bet guys that grade out as the best gymnasts in their class tend to do gymnasts workouts more than weight training. Chinups, handstands, inverted pushups...that sort of thing. Those(gymnast exercises) may not have been in style in Wilt's era...and they weren't really in style in David's either.

[polandprzem]

First of all @ this thread

Secondly

No, I'm qualifying eras.

David Robinson having the arms he did with the definition they had is a product of weight lifting, something Wilt Chamberlain didn't do. Again, that's why I qualified my comments talking about who was more "naturally" athletic.

When people talk about the greatest homerun hitters of all time, it should be a no-brainer that it's Barry Bonds. But, many if not most people qualify his numbers because of advantages he had, and often times Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth are still considered greater.

David Robinson didn't cheat or do anything wrong, but he had certain technological advantages. That's just fact. That's why you take that into consideration. If David Robinson was born in the 1940s, would he have had the same physique? No. And, that's why you can't criticize Wilt for not having as good a physique as Robinson.

Once again - we are talking about the most athletic center of all time, not the most gifted athlete with potential to be the best.

Yiu are talking about potentials of Wilt and achivenemnts of Dave and if you want to look at it this way. Let's wait 20 more years and then we can transfer Wilt and Drob to 2040 and do all the sience with nutrition and posibilities to be the greatest athlete.
Wilt did not have same envoirnemnt to bulit himself up like he would this days- well that's as obvious as one day we will die.

btw. Wilt was lifting weights
More - Bob Pet was lifting weights

and well also we can put Mikan into a consideration of being close with Wilt with athletic posibilieties. He was wide, fast and strong. Give him the tools to progress.

[polandprzem]

Please try to do an uneven bar routine and then say how weak in the upper body female gymnasts are. If guys are SO much stronger it shouldn't be a problem for them, and most men would not even be able to get themselves to do a full rotation on the bar. I'm willing to bet an average female level 10 gymnast could do more pull-ups than 95% of men.

How many people do you know are stronger in their upper body than their legs, anyway? I'm about 165 pounds and I bench 200, but I leg press 650, because legs are obviously bigger muscles.

Saying "women are weak to men" is kind of a ridiculous argument to make, because a lot of measured strength is focused in raw weight. I'm sure the average 5'11" 280 pound man who's extremely obese can probably bench press more than me, but to say a 280 pound man can outbench me is a silly comparison to make in the first place. Sure, he's stronger, but that added strength is pointless because it's rooted in the mass of his weight.

btw to this

Strenght is mostly genetics - it's about what kind of muscle cells you have in you body.

and having more weight doesnt give you more strenght

[JamStone]

Then what are you implying are folktales? Because all I was saying is that just merely comparing physiques to determine strength is about as conclusive as comparing weight and determining the same. What are you suggesting is a folktale?

This is the line of discussion that got to the point of you calling something "folktales." What is a folktale?

Wilt in his prime played somewhere around 285-300 lbs. David Robinson in his prime played around 250-260 lbs. There's enough of a difference to give good reason to believe Wilt's mass would give him an advantage in strength.

Absolutely not conclusive at all....

As conclusive as suggesting you can look at old videos and each of their respective physiques and simply conclude Robinson is as strong or stronger than Wilt.

Video is more conclusive than folktales.

[JamStone]

First of all @ this thread

Secondly

Once again - we are talking about the most athletic center of all time, not the most gifted athlete with potential to be the best.

Yiu are talking about potentials of Wilt and achivenemnts of Dave and if you want to look at it this way. Let's wait 20 more years and then we can transfer Wilt and Drob to 2040 and do all the sience with nutrition and posibilities to be the greatest athlete.
Wilt did not have same envoirnemnt to bulit himself up like he would this days- well that's as obvious as one day we will die.

btw. Wilt was lifting weights
More - Bob Pet was lifting weights

and well also we can put Mikan into a consideration of being close with Wilt with athletic posibilieties. He was wide, fast and strong. Give him the tools to progress.

I'm not talking about "potentials" at all. I'm qualifying eras with specifically the claim that you can look at David Robinson's physique and say he was stronger. I didn't accept or acquiesce to the notion that David Robinson was stronger. I qualified the look of his physique.

And, what achievements of David Robinson are we talking about? Him walking the length of the court on his hands? First of all, that is as much a "folktale" as Wilt Chamberlain having a 50 inch vertical.

Secondly, if you want to talk about athletic achievements, Wilt has his do ented in track in field. The fact that he played professional volleyball is also do ented. With David Robinson, the arguments are based on how his physique looks like and whottt's story that he walked on his hands.

No, we're not comparing Robinson's achievements versus Wilt's potential. If anything, it's completely the other way around.


Qualifying eras happens all the time. It happens in the Olympics, for example swimming, where there are "faster" swimsuits and every swimmer now shaves their entire body, wears a swim cap or goes bald. It's a scientific fast that allows you to swim faster. It has to be qualified. It happens with the home run in baseball with the "steroid era." When you compare athletes from different eras, you qualify the eras.

And, again, my qualifying the eras is specific to the argument that you can compare the physiques of David Robinson and Wilt Chamberlain and conclude that David was stronger simply because of his physique.

[polandprzem]

JS you missed the point again

And again with that Capt. obvious talk ...

[JamStone]

You misrepresented what I was saying.

Again, explain how we are talking about David Robinson's achievements versus Wilt's potential?

What are these David Robinson's achievements?

And, what suggests we're only talking about Wilt's potential?

Explain that to me.

[polandprzem]

JS you missed the point again

And again with that Capt. obvious talk ...

You misrepresented what I was saying.

Again, explain how we are talking about David Robinson's achievements versus Wilt's potential?

What are these David Robinson's achievements?

And, what suggests we're only talking about Wilt's potential?

Explain that to me.

Simply you are saying hat DRob had everything in his times to develop that phisic and Wilt was unable to have such tools (science, nutrition, snickers), that's why he is potentialy better athlete.

[JamStone]

As it pertains to comparing physiques, David had certain advantages, yes. My point has been that you cannot look at David Robinson's physique compared to Wilt and automatically assume David was stronger in the upper body.

But, that's not the reason I said Wilt was the better athlete, potentially or otherwise. The other things that have already been mentioned in this thread about Wilt's track times, shot put throws, high jump ability, playing professional volleyball, his vertical jump (exaggerated or not) are what give me reason to believe that Wilt was a once in a lifetime athlete unmatched in the history of the NBA.

The talk of qualifying eras is to counter a point like looking at physiques to determine strength or if each had 100 meter sprint times, you could qualify those numbers.

So, at least you can now agree and admit that you misrepresented what I was saying.


And, once again I ask, what achievements of David Robinson have you been talking about? Please answer that for me.

[polandprzem]

As it pertains to comparing physiques, David had certain advantages, yes. My point has been that you cannot look at David Robinson's physique compared to Wilt and automatically assume David was stronger in the upper body.

But, that's not the reason I said Wilt was the better athlete, potentially or otherwise. The other things that have already been mentioned in this thread about Wilt's track times, shot put throws, high jump ability, playing professional volleyball, his vertical jump (exaggerated or not) are what give me reason to believe that Wilt was a once in a lifetime athlete unmatched in the history of the NBA.

The talk of qualifying eras is to counter a point like looking at physiques to determine strength or if each had 100 meter sprint times, you could qualify those numbers.

So, at least you can now agree and admit that you misrepresented what I was saying.


And, once again I ask, what achievements of David Robinson have you been talking about? Please answer that for me.

I never assumed that DRob was stronger in an upperbody

As for achievements I ment the things Dave was capable of doing on the court.
He was capable of doing much more then Wilt.
So you was talking about potential that Wilt had and would heve been superior to Daves in the same 90s era

[JamStone]

I never assumed that DRob was stronger in an upperbody

As for achievements I ment the things Dave was capable of doing on the court.
He was capable of doing much more then Wilt.
So you was talking about potential that Wilt had and would heve been superior to Daves in the same 90s era

What could David do on the court that Wilt couldn't other than shoot jumpshots/free throws at a higher rate, which is more about skill than athleticism anyway. There's no concrete evidence that David Robinson was faster than Wilt. Wilt out-ran guards just the way David out-ran guards. Wilt even was a collegiate level sprinter.

And, no, I wasn't talking about potential with Wilt. Again, you mischaracterize what I said. I'm only qualifying eras, and specifically so as it relates to comparing physiques.

But, yes, if Wilt played in the same 1990s era, I believe we would have all seen that he was the superior athlete. That's my opinion. You're more than free to believe otherwise.

[Obstructed_View]

I've missed a number of pages in this thread, but I just want to make sure some of you understand one thing about Wilt. As great as he actually was, it cannot compare to how great he'll tell you he was. He was an all time great player, but he was also full of himself to the point where he didn't mind lying to anyone with a microphone. He's done a lot of amazing things, but it's probably wise to only go by the abilities and accomplishments that are properly do ented.

[howbouthemspurs]

I dont know about all of you guys but I still think David Robinson was the most athletic Center of all time.. Could be one of the most athletic NBA player of all time too

[polandprzem]

What could David do on the court that Wilt couldn't other than shoot jumpshots/free throws at a higher rate, which is more about skill than athleticism anyway. There's no concrete evidence that David Robinson was faster than Wilt. Wilt out-ran guards just the way David out-ran guards. Wilt even was a collegiate level sprinter.

And, no, I wasn't talking about potential with Wilt. Again, you mischaracterize what I said. I'm only qualifying eras, and specifically so as it relates to comparing physiques.

But, yes, if Wilt played in the same 1990s era, I believe we would have all seen that he was the superior athlete. That's my opinion. You're more than free to believe otherwise.

Catch an alleyup and finish it with vengance with a defender under him.
And there are more athletic guys in 90 then there were in 60s IMO (your is different but that's ok- you can claim that there are more athletic guys in 60s all you want)

I'm only qualifying eras

Strange mr obvoius

You trying to explain me that technology is going forward?

wow - thanks I guess

To every highlight I saw with Wilt and games I saw. He was not much more athletic then Russell on the court.

[JamStone]

I didn't say there were more athletic guys in the 60s than in the 90s.

And apparently wasn't able to catch alley oops and finish over a defender. Uhhhh ok. Perhaps the distinction is finishing "with a vengeance. LOL, right. Wilt couldn't do that. Are you serious?

And for all your talk about how David could do so mnay more things than Wilt on the court, you come up with one thing... And one thing only. And that one thing is something Wilt could.

Great argument...

[polandprzem]

I didn't say there were more athletic guys in the 60s than in the 90s.

And apparently wasn't able to catch alley oops and finish over a defender. Uhhhh ok. Perhaps the distinction is finishing "with a vengeance. LOL, right. Wilt couldn't do that. Are you serious?

And for all your talk about how David could do so mnay more things than Wilt on the court, you come up with one thing... And one thing only. And that one thing is something Wilt could.

Great argument...

Jammie

1. I just answerd the question what Dave could do that Wilt couldn't (wasn't doing)
2. I just making my opinion on what I can see. And I never saw Wilt running the floor like Dave did, Never saw Wilt as plastic around the rim as Dave was. Never saw Wilt so well coordinated as Dave was.
You can show me the numbers in athletics but it really not translate to the things you do on the floor. At least not as a whole.
3. Please don't start that 60s 90s science again
4. Thanks

[JamStone]

1. Again, with all your talk of what David could do, you chose one thing that the great majority would agree Wilt could also do. That was your best example.
2. You should watch some of the videos of Wilt posted in this thread or go look more up on YouTube. Saying what you did suggests you haven't watched any of the old Wilt videos.
3. I wasn't starting anything about the 60s/90s again. I was correcting your misrepresentation of what I've said. I never said there were better or more athletes in the 60s than in the 90s. You said I did say that. Kindly don't lie about what I've said.
4. You are welcome.

[polandprzem]

1. Again, with all your talk of what David could do, you chose one thing that the great majority would agree Wilt could also do. That was your best example.
2. You should watch some of the videos of Wilt posted in this thread or go look more up on YouTube. Saying what you did suggests you haven't watched any of the old Wilt videos.
3. I wasn't starting anything about the 60s/90s again. I was correcting your misrepresentation of what I've said. I never said there were better or more athletes in the 60s than in the 90s. You said I did say that. Kindly don't lie about what I've said.
4. You are welcome.

ad 1. Could
ad 2. I've seen enough - no match with dave's ones
ad 3. So Dave had better athletes against him and still was able to do this things I never so Wilt was doing?! Wow.
And yup I was saying that you ment 60s are better athletes then 90s. You never said that.


More thngs later, I got to go for now.

[Drachen]

Comparing highlights is stupid because there is more footage of John Wall than Wilt. But the game was not slower paced back then. The 6er averaged around 120 points per game.

The slower pace was a joke, alluding to the slow-mo that his highlight reel was played at.

I am comparing highlights because, well they are just that (supposedly) some footage of the best that a player has to offer.

[JamStone]

I never assumed that DRob was stronger in an upperbody

As for achievements I ment the things Dave was capable of doing on the court.
He was capable of doing much more then Wilt.
So you was talking about potential that Wilt had and would heve been superior to Daves in the same 90s era

"Was capable of doing" as in "could do."

That was your initial point. That's what it means.

Are suggesting Wilt was not capable of catching an alley oop and finishing with a vengeance over a defender? Or are you merely saying that you haven't seen Wilt do that in the videos you've watched of him.

So you like to qualify eras by sayind Dave played with better athletes, but you don't like qualifying eras when it comes to gauging Wilt's athleticism.

And, no, I never said nor do I believe that the 60s had better athletes than the 90s. I don't believe that at all.

The former would be an inaccurate contention. The latter would not be applicable to your point that Wilt wasn't capable of doing this one thing you stated David was capable of.

[Obstructed_View]

He was never too far off. When talking about the 67 76ers he said "we were so good I think he started at 41-3." in reality they started at 40-4. In his first book he said he averaged something like 50 points in high school when he really averaged around 48. Even his 20,000 women claim was not far off when people close to him were asked.

No, the things you mentioned are the things where he wasn't far off. To say that he was "never" far off is to admit that you didn't see many of his interviews.

[whottt]

What could David do on the court that Wilt couldn't other than shoot jumpshots/free throws at a higher rate, which is more about skill than athleticism anyway.

Walk the length of it on his hands....and if you are going to say Wilt could've had done that I'll simiply counter with saying David could have won Big 8 Track and Field events in the mid 1950's, slept with 20k women, and made change of the top of the backboard.